Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and award rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad on 24.2.2004 in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 214 and 215 of 1991 whereby the land references preferred by the respective claimants came to be dismissed. 2. Perusing the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that the reference Court did not ascertain the market value of the lands under acquisition, but both these cases came to be dismissed on same technical grounds. So far as LAQ No. 214 of 1991 was concerned, the reference Court held that there was a dispute between claimant Ishwarbhai Dholabhai Desai (now deceased) and the opponents No. 3 and 4, namely, Vaghri Ratibhai Gulabbhai and Shankarbhai Gulabbhai Vaghri regarding the ownership and possession of the land under acquisition. The case of the claimant was to the effect that the opponents No. 3 and 4 did not succeed before the tenancy Court and the tenancy Court came to the conclusion that they had no right or lien over the land. However, mere fact that in village forms 7 and 12, the names of opponents No. 3 and 4 emerged as cultivator and, therefore, the reference Court came to the conclusion that the whole reference deserved dismissal. The reference Court further observed that after the death of the original claimant Ishwarbhai Dholabhai, though by substitution his son Kanubhai Ishwarbhai was impleaded as claimant, but the reference Court came to the conclusion that Kanubhai Ishwarbhai, the son of Ishwarbhai failed to produce probate of will allegedly executed by Ishwarbhai and on that count it was held by the reference Court that LAQ Case No. 214 of 1991 deserved dismissal. So far as LAQ Case No. 215 of 1991 is concerned, the reference Court while dismissing the said case observed that in LAQ Case No. 215 of 1991, opponents No. 3 and 4 are not joined and, therefore, both the cases could not have been consolidated. In short, by assigning the above reasons, the reference Court dismissed both the reference cases without determining the just and fair amount of compensation. 3. Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that the reference Court has taken a very hyper-technical view and without determining just and fair compensation, which the claimants are entitled to get, the reference Court dismissed both the land reference cases. 3. Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that the reference Court has taken a very hyper-technical view and without determining just and fair compensation, which the claimants are entitled to get, the reference Court dismissed both the land reference cases. It is submitted that so far as the Land Reference Case No. 214 of 1991 is concerned, even the other side did not raise any dispute that Kanubhai Ishwarbhai was not the son and legal representative of deceased claimant Ishwarbhai Dholabhai. Ishwarbhai Dholabhai died pending said reference case before the reference Court and by order of the reference itself, Kanubhai Ishwarbhai, the son and legal representative of Ishwarbhai was brought on record. It is further submitted that the claimant himself joined opponents No. 3 and 4 in the reference, so that dispute, if any, can be conveniently resolved and the claimant had come forward with documentary evidence showing that even the so called claim over the acquired land of the opponents No. 3 and 4, was not considered by competent tenancy Court. That the opponents No. 3 and 4 posed themselves as tenant in the acquired land, but their case was not at all accepted by the competent tenancy Court and they had lost said case. 3.1 So far as the dismissal of Land Reference Case No. 215 of 1991 is concerned, Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel submitted that the aforesaid land reference case was filed by appellant – claimant Rohitbhai Vinubhai Desai and it is true that opponents No. 3 and 4 who were opponents in LAQ Case No. 214 of 1991 were not joined in LAQ Case No. 215 of 1991 as they had no dispute whatsoever regarding the land went in acquisition of claimant Rohitbhai, despite this the reference Court held that order of consolidation in both the matters was not appropriate since opponents No. 3 and 4 were not joined as co-opponents in Land Reference Case No. 215 of 1991 and, therefore, came to the conclusion that even Land Reference Case No. 215 of 1991 deserved dismissal. 4. Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel representing the appellants therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court may be set-aside and both the reference cases may be remanded to the reference Court with specific direction to decide both the cases on merits within a stipulated period. 5. 4. Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel representing the appellants therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court may be set-aside and both the reference cases may be remanded to the reference Court with specific direction to decide both the cases on merits within a stipulated period. 5. In light of the above situation and further the fact that the reference Court did not ascertain the market value of the lands under acquisition and did not determine the amount of compensation, Ms. Mathur, learned AGP for the opponents submitted that necessary orders may be passed in this appeal. 6. I have gone through the record and proceedings in context with the submissions advanced by the rival sides. 7. First of all, the bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it clearly transpires that though one of the issues framed by the reference Court was to the effect as to whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not fair and adequate? If yes, what additional compensation the claimants are entitled to? It appears that the said issue has not at all been replied by the reference Court and both the land reference cases came to be dismissed merely on technical ground. 8. So far as dismissal of Land Reference Case No. 214 of 1991 is concerned, the reference Court observed that since there was dispute about the land between the claimant and opponents No. 3 and 4 in said matter and, therefore, instead of resolving the same, the reference Court on that ground dismissed the reference case. Another ground arising for dismissal of same reference case is that the original claimant Ishwarbhai Dholabhai, who died during the pendency of aforesaid reference case and in his place his son and legal heir Kanubhai Ishwarbhai Desai was substituted as claimant, the reference Court observed that as Ishwarbhai Desai had executed a will and as Kanubhai Ishwarbhai failed to produce any probate of will, the reference case was deserved to be dismissed. It appears that none of the reasons assigned by the reference Court can be said to be sufficient for dismissal of the reference case. It appears that none of the reasons assigned by the reference Court can be said to be sufficient for dismissal of the reference case. As emerged from the impugned judgment and order rendered by the reference Court, it was the case of the claimant that opponents No. 3 and 4 had no right, title or any interest in the land acquired and even their claim came to be dismissed even by competent tenancy Court. Instead of examining the issue in its true perspective and on merits, the reference Court thought it fit to make it a ground for dismissal of the reference case. Moreover, nothing emerges that so far as subsequently substituted claimant, namely, Kanubhai Ishwarbhai Desai was concerned, the other side had ever raised the defence that he was not heir and legal representative of deceased Ishwarbhai Desai. 9. So far as dismissal of the land reference case No. 215 of 1991 is concerned, the reference Court dismissed said reference case on rather more hyper-technical ground, namely, the consolidation of both the reference cases was held to be improper. There is no dispute that both the land reference cases arise out of the common award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer. There was a common notification for the acquisition of these lands published under Section 4 of the Act. The reference Court observed that since in Land Reference Case No. 215 of 1991, the opponents No. 3 and 4, who were respondents in Land Reference Case No. 214 of 1991 were not joined and, therefore, the consolidation was improper. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, nothing emerges that opponent Nos. 3 and 4 in Land Reference Case No. 214 of 1991 had any claim or alleged any claim in the land of claimant Rohitbhai Vinubhai Desai of Land Reference Case No. 215 of 1991 and, therefore, this Court fails to understand as to how the reference Court dismissed the Land Reference Case No. 215 of 1991 on such ground. 10. Resultant effect to the above discussions is that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court deserves to be set-aside. 10. Resultant effect to the above discussions is that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court deserves to be set-aside. As stated above, the reference Court did not address itself to decide and determine the compensation of the lands under acquisition and, therefore, though the reference cases are very old, but there is no option whatsoever but to remand both these matters. However, considering the fact that the cases are very old, necessary direction to the reference Court shall have to be given. 11. For the foregoing reasons, both these appeals are allowed. The judgment and award rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad on 24.2.2004 in Land Reference Case Nos. 214 and 215 of 1991 are hereby set-aside. Both the aforesaid Land Reference Cases are ordered to be restored to the file of the reference Court and are ordered to be remanded with specific direction that the reference Court shall determine the amount of just and fair compensation on merits and dispose of both the land reference cases in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the record and proceedings. Registry is directed to send back record and proceedings immediately. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service permitted. P P P P P