JUDGMENT : Though this appeal is listed for admission, in view of long pendency of the matter and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') assailing the order dated 22.07.2015 passed in LAC No.21/2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the reference Court') whereby the reference petition filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act was dismissed. 3. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellant-claimant has purchased the subject site from Sri.M.D.Hayath during the year 2002, thereafter khatha came to be mutated in his name and is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is averred that 265 sq.meters of land out of 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.31/21 of Kallhalli Village was acquired by the State for the benefit of respondent No.2-Corporation vide preliminary and final notifications dated 27.07.2010 and 17.09.2011. The acquisition of the portion of the property of the appellant was for the purpose of formation of road. The respondent No.1 - Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 07.02.2013 and pursuant to the service of notice, the appellant has filed an application under Section 18 of the Act and the authority made the reference. The reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 22.07.2015 dismissed the reference petition. 4. Sri.Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reference Court has committed grave error in dismissing the reference petition filed by the appellant seeking for enhancement of compensation. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga held the meeting with the land owners including the appellant herein on 14.05.2012 and it was agreed that they would pass the consent award at the rate of Rs.2,040/- per sq.ft. and pursuant to the said meeting, the proceedings were held. However, the authorities have failed to pass the consent award as agreed on the ground that the beneficiary Corporation has not deposited the agreed amount and the matter was kept pending. and pursuant to the said meeting, the proceedings were held. However, the authorities have failed to pass the consent award as agreed on the ground that the beneficiary Corporation has not deposited the agreed amount and the matter was kept pending. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 - Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.ft which is meager amount as the acquired property is situated at Vinoba Nagar II Stage, Shivamogga, which is a commercial hub and the surrounding areas have been developed long back, the value of the land is much higher than what was offered to the appellant in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. It is also submitted that the CMC, Shivamogga, has auctioned and sold certain properties at Rs.2,458/- per sq.ft during the relevant time. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. which has not been properly considered by the reference Court resulted in dismissal of the reference petition. It is contended that the appellant has entered the witness box and adduced the oral as well as produced the documentary evidence to substantiate his claim for higher compensation and the reference Court, without considering any of the material on record, has proceeded to reject the reference petition. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the reference Court and submits that the appellant is the subsequent purchaser of the land. The acquisition proceedings are completed and the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award which is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal. It is submitted that the appellant has not placed any evidence before the reference Court seeking for enhancement of compensation and in the absence of any evidence on record, the reference Court has justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant-claimant which does not call for any interference in this appeal. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, perused the memorandum of appeal and reference Court records. 7. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, perused the memorandum of appeal and reference Court records. 7. It is not in dispute that the State Government has acquired various extent of land for the benefit of respondent No.2-Corporation for the formation of the road vide preliminary notification dated 27.07.2010 and final notification dated 17.09.2011. The respondent No.1 has passed an award determining the market value of the subject land at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.ft. Being aggrieved by the award of the respondent No.1, the appellant has sought reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking for enhancement of compensation. In support of his claim for higher compensation, the appellant has filed the affidavit evidence and produced Exs.P-1 to P-14. The respondents have adduced oral evidence and exhibited the documents as per R-1 to R-16. The reference Court, after considering the material available on record, has dismissed the reference petition. 8. The contention of the appellant that award of compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.ft by the Land Acquisition Officer is unjust compensation and the very same authorities have conducted the proceedings wherein they have agreed that they would pass the consent award at the rate of Rs.2,040/- per sq.ft. which was the prevailing market value at the time of acquisition and without doing so they have passed the general award determining the market value at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.ft. which is contrary to the evidence on record. In support of his claim, the appellant has produced the copies of the proceedings dated 14.05.2012 at Ex.P-1. Ex.P-2 is the correspondence dated 25.05.2012 made by Deputy Commissioner and the respondent No.2 pursuant to the proceedings of Deputy Commissioner dated 14.05.2012. Ex.P-3 is the proforma bill prepared for the purpose of payment of compensation to the appellant in respect of the subject land by the respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.2,040/- per sq.ft. Ex.P-4 is the correspondence dated 03.07.2012 between the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1, wherein the respondent No.2 has expressed his inability to deposit the consented amount at the rate of Rs.2,040/- on the ground that it would be a financial burden on respondent No.2-Corporation. Ex.P-4 is the correspondence dated 03.07.2012 between the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1, wherein the respondent No.2 has expressed his inability to deposit the consented amount at the rate of Rs.2,040/- on the ground that it would be a financial burden on respondent No.2-Corporation. Ex.P-5 is the correspondence made between the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga to the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga stating that the beneficiary has expressed its inability to deposit the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,040/- per sq.ft. Exs.P-6 and P7 is the correspondence between Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga to the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga wherein the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga has enclosed the list of five LAC cases where the reference Court has enhanced the compensation and sought the orders of the Deputy Commissioner to pass award in respect of the subject land. Ex.P-12 is the proceedings dated 30.06.2012 of respondent No.2, wherein they have auctioned certain vacant sites in Vinoba Nagar, Shivamogga. The said proceedings evidences the bid amount, the dimension of the site and the name of the successful bidders. 9. The respondent beneficiary has produced the oral as well as documentary evidence to oppose the reference petition contending that the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the market value of the subject land at Rs.40/- per sq.ft. which is just and proper. On perusal of the oral evidence of RW-2, nothing is stated about the market value of the property, however, in the cross-examination RW-2 has denied the suggestions made by the appellant's counsel. 10. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the appellant-claimant has placed sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence before the reference Court to determine the correct market value of subject land. The reference Court has taken note of the exhibits, however, has not assigned any reason as to why those evidences cannot be relied to determine just and proper compensation. The reference Court has assigned only one reason at paragraph No.15 of its judgment that the Land Acquisition Officer, Shivamogga has looked into nature of the property and value of the property and verified the previous sale deed and have rightly assessed the compensation amount and now the appellant-claimant who has approached this Court supported without any evidence on record to show that property as on the date of acquisition was valued at Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- sq.ft. and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. 11. and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. 11. In our considered view the reference Court has committed grave error as the appellant-claimant has placed Ex.P-1 and other exhibits which clearly demonstrate the market value of the property. The appellant has also placed Exs.P-6 and P-7 to demonstrate that under the same acquisition, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation amount. The appellant has also placed on record the proceedings of respondent No.2-Corporation at Ex.P-12, wherein the Corporation has held auction for the vacant sites, to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation and without looking into the oral as well as documentary evidence, the reference Court has proceeded to reject the reference. The respondent beneficiary has not placed any material before the reference Court with regard to actual market value of the property in question nor they have denied the proceedings at Exs.P-1 and P-12. In the absence of any such evidence from the beneficiary the reference Court ought to have considered the oral as well as documentary evidence of the appellant and determine the correct market value of the property in question. 12. On close scrutiny of the pleadings, evidence on record and the reasoning assigned by the reference Court, we are of the considered view that the reference Court has grossly erred in appreciating the material available on record which resulted in dismissal of the reference petition. The right of a person whose immovable property has been acquired by the State authorities under the power of eminent domain, the land loser is entitled for just and fair compensation, if the compensation is meager or nominal, it would defeat the object of the Act and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In our considered view, the Reference Court should not have proceeded on too technical manner in considering the evidence on record more so when the matter relating to payment of compensation to the land loser. When the real justice is seen pitted against technical consideration, the Courts should always lean to disburse substantial justice. In view of the same, interest of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the Reference Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the appellant-claimant and the respondents to argue the matter afresh and thereafter the reference Court to consider the reference on its merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same. 13. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and order dated 22.07.2015 passed in LAC No.21/2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the reference Court for consideration and disposal in accordance with law within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt copy of this order. iii. The parties to appear before the reference Court on 10.10.2023 without awaiting notice from the reference Court. iv. The Registry is directed to transmit the original record to the reference Court forthwith. No order as to costs.