ORDER : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all these revision petitions and Sri Sanghamesh G Patil, Manjunath N.D, and Chandranath Goulay, learned counsels for the respondents in few of the revision petitions. 2. At the outset, this Court heard the matter with regard to the locus standi of the revision petitioner in preferring this revision petition. 3. Sri A.V. Gangadarappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the award passed by the Reference Court is against the Special Land Acquisition Officer who is acquiring Authority and the lands were acquired for the benefit of Urban Development Authority, Shivamogga. Therefore, revision petitioner has got every right to file the revision petitions. 4. He would also contend that on merits, there is a palpable error as the very reference itself was time barred. Therefore, the revision petitions need to be entertained filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision petitions must be held in favour of the petitioner in all these revision petitions overruling the objections raised on behalf of the respondents. 5. In order to appreciate the said aspect of the matter, it is just and necessary to cull out Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act which reads as under: “54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. - Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid 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 XLIV thereof.” 6. Thus, on plain reading of above provision it is crystal clear that Land Acquisition Officer has no locus standi to file an appeal. A similar question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Dilip Kumar , reported in ILR 2011 KAR 820. 7. Thus, on plain reading of above provision it is crystal clear that Land Acquisition Officer has no locus standi to file an appeal. A similar question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Dilip Kumar , reported in ILR 2011 KAR 820. 7. In the said case, the Division Bench while considering the locus standi of the Land Acquisition Officer, held as under: 4. In the first place, we are astound by the conduct of the Land Acquisition Officer in filing the appeal. The Land Acquisition Officer is a quasi judicial authority, determines the market value in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The land is evidently acquired for the benefit of respondent No. 8, which is a Sugar Factory. The respondent No. 8 who has the liability to pay the compensation if aggrieved should file an appeal. We do not see any good reason, as to why Land Acquisition Officer should file an appeal. In fact when the land is acquired for the benefit of third party and that State has no liability to pay compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer or the State will not have any locus to file an appeal against such award, only the aggrieved party who has liability to pay compensation can file an appeal. We find that the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer has no legal basis. 8. As could be seen from the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, Land Acquisition Officer being the quasi judicial Authority who determines the market value of the land in acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, do not have locus standi to file revision against the award of the Reference Court. 9. In view of the same, the revision petitions filed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not maintainable. 10. However, keeping open the liberty for the beneficiary to assail the validity of the enhanced market value as well as the proceedings before the Reference Court including the question of limitation in filing the reference application, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petitioner has no locus standi to file these revision petitions. 11. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petitions are dismissed as the petitioner has no locus standi. 11. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petitions are dismissed as the petitioner has no locus standi. (ii) However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (iii) Office is directed to return the certified copies after keeping the photocopies.