ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bilagai 08.06.2010 in Misc.(LAC) No.36/2005. 2. The facts giving raise to the above proceedings are that on 07.11.2001, the respondent had issued a notice seeking to acquire the property. Subsequent thereto the property was acquired, but the compensation was awarded, as if the land was dry land. Hence, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court in W.P.No.32082/2002, which was disposed of on 26th August 2002, treating annexure-D to the said writ petition for enhancement of compensation to be an application filed seeking reference to the Civil Court and in the event of the Collector not making reference to Civil Court, the petitioner therein was permitted to approach the Civil Court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. It is in pursuance thereof that Misc.(LAC) No.36/2005 was taken up. However, the same came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had received the entire compensation amount awarded under the consent award and therefore, the question of seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the land is irrigated land was not permissible. 4. It is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court stating that the order of this Court in W.P.No.32082/2002 has not been given proper effect. This Court vide its order dated 26th August 2002 in W.P.No.32082/2002 had categorically observed that the petitioner had already received the compensation amount but was only seeking for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the land was irrigated land, while the compensation was awarded as dry land. 5. Shri M.Siddaraju on behalf of Shri Basavaraj G.Godachi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that instead of going into these facts, the Civil Judge had rejected the petition on the ground that it was a consent award. The fact that it was consent award is known to everyone, what the Civil Judge had to determine was as to whether the land was irrigated or dry land, if irrigated land, enhance the compensation and award the same. The fact that it was consent award is known to everyone, what the Civil Judge had to determine was as to whether the land was irrigated or dry land, if irrigated land, enhance the compensation and award the same. That not having been done, the order suffers from legal infirmity is not in accordance with the observations made by this Court and therefore, he submits that the order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the Civil Judge is to be set aside and direction be issued to the Civil Court to hold a detailed enquiry. 6. Shri Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP would submit that no interference is required by this Court. 7. Heard Shri M.Siddaraju on behalf of Shri Basavaraj G.Godachi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the papers. 8. Having considered the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32082/2002, it was but required for the Civil Judge to enquire into whether the land was irrigated or not and if irrigated to award the compensation for such irrigated land. Instead of doing so, the Civil Judge has dismissed the reference on the ground that the claimant has already received the compensation amount awarded, which is not in accordance with the observation made by this Court. Hence, the order dated 08.06.2010 is set aside, the matter is remanded to the Civil Court to hold detailed enquiry as regards the land being irrigated or not, if irrigated to award the enhanced compensation in terms of the value of the irrigated land as on the date of the acquisition, if it is found that the land is not irrigated then the compensation as awarded would continue without any change. 9. The petition is accordingly partly allowed.