ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. Office has raised objections regarding maintainability of these revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, I have heard learned counsel for petitioners on the question of maintainability. 2. Order under challenge has been passed by the reference Court on reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of the claim made by the petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award dated 19.02.2010 in respect of several lands involved in these batch of revision petitions. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed market value at Rs. 29,750/- per acre. The land owners/claimants filed applications under Section 18(1) seeking reference to the Civil Court for adjudication of correct market value and compensation payable to them. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Civil Court but the Civil Court received the reference after expiry of three years 90 days. Therefore, a question arose as to whether the reference made was within time. The claimants examined themselves and marked several documents. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer. Reference Court has answered the point of limitation raised against the claimants and has dismissed the reference. Challenging the said order petitioners have filed these revision petitions. 4. The point that arises for consideration is: "Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable against the order passed by the reference Court? Whether an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Karnataka amendment is maintainable against the order passed?" 5. Let me first examine whether revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable. Section 115 as amended by incorporating a proviso vide Act 46 of 1999 has come into force with effect from 01.07.2002. The High Court, under Section 115 may call for the record of any case decided by any Court subordinate to it in which no appeal lies thereto, if such subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court, under Section 115 may call for the record of any case decided by any Court subordinate to it in which no appeal lies thereto, if such subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The proviso, which is relevant for our purpose, reads as under: "Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings" 6. Sub clause (2) of Section 115 also makes it clear that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate to it. 7. In the instant case, as already referred to above, reference made to the Civil Court has been dismissed as barred by time. If the order of the reference Court had gone in favour of the claimants then the Court below would have held that reference was within time: In that event the proceedings before the Court below would not get disposed of finally, but would be pending for adjudication on merits. Therefore, as per proviso to Section 115(1) revision petition cannot be entertained to vary or reverse or set aside the order passed by the reference Court. Hence, office objection raised deserves to be upheld. 8. But, the question that remains is what is the remedy available to the petitioners? Whether an appeal is maintainable against the orders under challenge? If appeal is not maintainable, then only remedy for the petitioners would be to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Learned counsel Sri Lingaraj Maradi appearing for Sri Jagadeesh Patil, submits that appeal is not maintainable under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') against the order passed by reference Court dismissing the claim as barred by time. 9. Learned counsel Sri Lingaraj Maradi appearing for Sri Jagadeesh Patil, submits that appeal is not maintainable under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') against the order passed by reference Court dismissing the claim as barred by time. He invites attention of the Court to Section 26 of the Act to contend that under Section 26 read with Section 54 of the Act appeal lies only against an award and an award has to satisfy the characteristic features stated in Section 26. 10. Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State amendment vide Mysore Act, 1961 reads as under: "(1) Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court in any proceedings under this Act to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of that Court. (2) From any decree of a Court, other than the High Court, passed on an appeal under sub-section (1) an appeal shall lie to the High Court, if by only if, the amount of value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal exceeds two thousand rupees or the case involves any question of title to land. (3) From any decree of the High Court passed on an appeal under sub-section (1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court, subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLV of the First Schedule to the said Code." 11. It is thus clear from Section 54(1) that an appeal shall lie from an award of the Court in any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, question that requires to be answered is whether the order now passed by the reference Court dismissing the reference as barred by time constitutes an award. 12. Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 deals with "Reference to Court & Procedure Thereon". Once the matter is referred to the Court for determination of the correct market value payable, the reference Court is enjoined with a duty under Section 23 to take into consideration certain factors while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the acquired land. Six factors have been enumerated in Section 23(1) of the Act. 13. Once the matter is referred to the Court for determination of the correct market value payable, the reference Court is enjoined with a duty under Section 23 to take into consideration certain factors while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the acquired land. Six factors have been enumerated in Section 23(1) of the Act. 13. Section 25 states that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less then the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. 14. Section 26 is important for our purpose. It is usefully extracted hereunder: "26. Form off awards.- (1) Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. (2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2) and section 2, clauses (9) respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)." 15. It is thus clear from a perusal of Section 26 of the Act that an award of the reference Court under Part-III of the Act shall be in writing and signed by the Judge and it shall specify the amount awarded under various clauses namely clauses first to sixthly of Section 23(1) together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. It is this award so passed that shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2 clause (2) and Section 2 clause (9), respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioner, dismissal of reference as barred by time cannot be regarded as an award passed by the reference Court inasmuch as no amount is awarded as provided under Section 26 let alone under various clauses of Section 23(1) of the Act. 16. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioner, dismissal of reference as barred by time cannot be regarded as an award passed by the reference Court inasmuch as no amount is awarded as provided under Section 26 let alone under various clauses of Section 23(1) of the Act. Therefore, there is no deemed decree as provided under sub clause (2) Section 26 and hence, appeal against such order dismissing the reference as barred by time does not lie under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Karnataka amendment. As per Section 54(1) of the Act, an appeal shall lie from an award or from any part of the award, of the Court in any proceedings under the Act. Since, there is no award in the instant case an appeal does not lie against the order under challenge. Therefore, the remedy for petitioners is to file a writ petition challenging the order passed. Accordingly, office objections are upheld. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the memorandum of revision petitions filed may be permitted to be converted into writ petitions. Petitioners are permitted to convert the revision petitions into writ petitions by carrying out necessary amendment and if necessary, by filing fresh cause title. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of.