1. This Appeal is directed against the Award dated 27.12.2006 of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu on Collector Land Acquisition Rajouri's Reference under Section 18 of the State Land Acquisition Act to District Judge, Rajouri which was transferred to him for disposal under law. 2. Vide Learned 2nd Additional District Judge's Award, the market value of the respondent's land situated at Village Dhangri District Rajouri, which was acquired for construction of small firing range along with other lands by the Border Security Force vide Government of Jammu and Kashmir's Notification No. 30 RD of 1993 dated 26.02.1993 was assessed at Rs.40,000/- per kanal as against the Collector's Award assessing Rs.20,000/- and Rs.18,000/- per kanal for cultivable and non-cultivable land respectively. 3. Besides urging that the market value of the respondent's land had been determined at a higher rate by the learned District Judge, it is asserted by the appellant that the District Judge's Award was bad in law, in that, it had been allowed without allowing the appellant any opportunity to lead evidence to sup­port the assessment made by the Collector. 4. On hearing of the Appeal, the respondent's learned counsel justified learned District Judge's determination urging that as no evidence was produced by the appellant and the Collector to rebut the respondent's evidence, so the market value of the land as determined by the District Judge may not warrant interference in Appeal. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Perusal of the records indicates that the learned District Judge, Rajouri had not issued any Notice to the appellant, the Authority which had issued requisition for acquisition of the land for its purpose, before hearing the respondent and the Collector on the issues which he had framed on the Collector's Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads thus:- "i) To what rate of compensation petitioner is entitled in respect of his land acquired by the Collector vide Award dated 3.3.99 for Public Purposes namely construction of small arms firing range by the BSF? O.P.P ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of solatium on the award amount? iii) Relief."O.P.P 7. O.P.P ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of solatium on the award amount? iii) Relief."O.P.P 7. Notice, however, appears to have been issued to the Border Security Force by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu when the case was transferred to him for disposal pursuant to the orders passed on respondent's Transfer Appli­cation. The Notice issued to the DIG BSF, Sector Head Quarter, Rajouri, reads thus: "IN THE COURT OF 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, JAMMU. Bansi lal v. Collector (Land Acquisition) Rajouri. NOTICE To DIG BSF Sector Head Quarter Rajouri. THROUGH Pr. District Judge, Rajouri. WHEREAS, land under Khasra Nos. 59, 62,53,160,47 measuring 13 kanal 1 marla situated at Village Dhangri Tehsil Rajouri has been acquired for B S F and a dispute about the quantum of compensation awarded by Collector Rajouri, has arisen which is now pending before this court. The claimant is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and rs.18000/- per kanal, for cultivable and uncultivable lands plus a Jabirana of 15%. WHEREAS, you are put a notice to show cause as to why the compensation shall not be enhanced as claimed by petitioner. You will convey your objections if any, by or before next date, which is fixed as 2.12.2006. ISSUED UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS COURT TODAY ON 16TH OF NOV. 2006. Sd/- (A.K.KOUL) 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ]AMMU." 8. Perusal of the Notice indicates that the DIG BSF was not apprised about the respondent's claim and the evidence which he had led in the case to support his claim seeking enhanced rate of compensation for his land. 9. The case appears to have been heard on the day the Border Security Force's representative appeared in the Court in response to the Notice issued by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge. 10. The question that, therefore, falls for determination is as to whether the course adopted by the District Judge, Rajouri and the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu satisfies the requirements of Section 48 of the Land Acquisi­tion Act. To answer the question posed, regard needs to be had to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, which reads as follows:- "48. To answer the question posed, regard needs to be had to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, which reads as follows:- "48. Acquisition of land at cost of a local body, person or body of persons- (1) When the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land and at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local body or of any person or body of persons, whether corporate or not, the charges of and incidental to, such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or such person or body of persons. (2) In any proceedings held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or the person or the body of persons concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of com­pensation: Provided that, no such person or a body of persons shall be entitled to demand a reference under section 18." 11. Perusal of Section 48 (2) of the Act demonstrates that the local Authority or the person or the body of persons on whose behalf the land was acquired have been given right to appear in the proceedings and adduce evidence needed to determine the amount of compensation. It, therefore, becomes apparent that before taking the evidence of the person on whose request the reference seeking determination of the market value of the land was made, the local body, the person or the body of persons on whose account the land was acquired, are required to be present at the time the claimant puts in evidence in support of his claim, so that they were aware about the nature of the evidence led in the case facilitating them to lead their evidence which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired property. 12. Mere issuance of Notice to the local body, the person or the body of persons on whose account the land was acquired, requiring his Objections to the claim of enhancement of compensation and that too after the person on whose request the reference was made to the Court to determine the market value of the land, had led his evidence, may not, in my opinion, satisfy the requirements of Section 48 of the Act. 13. 13. The determination of the market value of the land in question by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge is, therefore, vitiated for his omission to provide opportunity to the appellant to participate in the proceedings and lead evidence necessary for determination of compensation of the acquired land. 14. The market value of the land determined by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge without providing opportunity to lead evidence to demonstrate the market value of the land, to the appellant, therefore, becomes unsustainable. 15. For all what has been said above, the finding recorded by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge on Issue No. 1 cannot be sustained. The finding is, therefore, set aside. 16. This Appeal, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed setting aside learned 2nd Additional District Judge Jammu's Award dated 27.12.2006. The Collector's reference to the District Judge shall revive for its consideration afresh in accordance with law. Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu may afford the parties concerned reasonable opportunity to produce their respective evidence and any other material on which they may like to rely upon to support their respective claim regarding the market value of the land in question. 17. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu on May 28,2011.