JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and nil Award dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned LA Judge, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No. Misc. (LA) 43 of 2007. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. K.K. Pal for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. None appeared for the other respondent. 3. The simple submission of learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik is that for acquisition of land measuring 6 gandas 2 karas & 13 dhurs situated at Mouja Ramnagar within Agartala Municipal Corporation, the land owners, i.e., the referring-claimants, were paid compensation @ Rs.3,00,000/- per kani, whereas they claimed compensation @ Rs.25,00,000/- per kani. The referring-claimants received the compensation under protest by filing an application under Section 18 of the LA Act to make a reference and, accordingly, the LA Collector made reference to the learned LA Judge for determination of actual market price of the land and that reference was registered as Case No. Misc. (LA) 43 of 2007 in the Court of learned LA Judge, Court No.2, Agartala and the learned LA Judge on 30.08.2013 in spite of a petition filed on behalf of the referring-claimants seeking time to adduce evidence, disposed the reference without affording opportunity to the referring-claimants to adduce evidence. The respondents also were not afforded any chance to adduce evidence. The reference was disposed of by a simple order that the compensation for acquisition given by the LA Collector was proper. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. Pal appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 has submitted that the referring-claimants in spite of repeated chance failed to adduce any evidence and, therefore, the learned LA Judge disposed the case finally by the impugned order. It was the lapse of the referring-claimants that they failed to adduce evidence and, so, the judgment did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 5. I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned LA Judge. It shows that because of failure of the referring-claimants to adduce evidence on the date fixed, the reference has been disposed of with nil award. Lower Court record is before me and on perusal of the same I find that on consecutive five days there were applications from the side of the referring-claimants seeking time/adjournments to adduce evidence. It shows that because of failure of the referring-claimants to adduce evidence on the date fixed, the reference has been disposed of with nil award. Lower Court record is before me and on perusal of the same I find that on consecutive five days there were applications from the side of the referring-claimants seeking time/adjournments to adduce evidence. Order dated 07.03.2013, 24.04.2013, 23.05.2013 and 12.07.2013 show that applications were made on behalf of referring-claimants seeking time to adduce evidence. Ultimately on 30.08.2013 the reference was closed by learned LA Judge. It appears that on 12.07.2013, i.e., previous date, it was mentioned that adjournment was granted as a last chance, so, there was no apparent wrong in the order passed by learned LA Judge in closing the reference on 30.08.2013. 6. Article 31A of the Constitution of India prescribes that in case of acquisition of land compensation at a rate which shall not be less than market value should be paid to land holders. Here the acquisition has been made and the compensation has been paid, but the land holders alleged that the compensation was grossly inadequate. Their prayer was considered and LA Collector made the reference to the learned LA Judge for determination of proper compensation, if any. As I find it was the lapse on the part of the referring-claimants that they could not adduce the evidence even after five chances given to them. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik prays for giving a chance to the referring-claimants to adduce evidence as otherwise the claimant will be deprived of proper compensation. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Pal submits that in case such a chance is given to the referring claimants, the respondents also should be allowed to adduce evidence and that some cost should be imposed. 8. Considering the submission of learned counsel of both side and considering the fact that the claimants alleged that inadequate compensation has been paid, a chance is given to the referring-claimants as well as the respondents to adduce evidence. Order dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned LA Judge in Case No. Misc. (LA) 43 of 2007 is, therefore, set aside. The referring-claimants shall pay a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) as a token to the respondent Nos.2 & 3. 9. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment. Order dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned LA Judge in Case No. Misc. (LA) 43 of 2007 is, therefore, set aside. The referring-claimants shall pay a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) as a token to the respondent Nos.2 & 3. 9. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the L.C. record learned L.A. Judge shall afford a chance to both side to adduce evidence within six months from date the L.C. record is received. Not more than one chance to each of the parties to adduce evidence should be given and the case should be finally heard and decided. Both side are directed to appear before the learned LA Judge on 01.09.2016. 10. The original documents filed by the claimant-petitioners in C.M Application No.388 of 2014 be returned to the appellant-petitioners for their taking appropriate step in connection with the reference case within seven days. 11. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.