BASANAGOUDA Vs. SOCIAL ECONOMIC CULTURAL ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioners are assailing the order of the reference court viz. , Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur, in rejecting the I. A. No. I filed under Order 8, Rule 17 of the CPC in LAC No. 189 of 1991 by order dated 17-1-2004.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioners are the owners of the land in Sy. No. 424/1 measuring 8. 6 acres situate at Mahal Baghayath of Bijapur district. This land is shown to have been acquired at the instance of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, award has been passed by the Land acquisition Officer (for short, 'the LAO' ). Petitioners being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAO sought for reference. Accordingly, the LAO referred the applications to the Civil court as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the act' ). The reference order is said to be of 1991. During the pendency of reference application for enquiry in the year 1998, I. A. No. I is filed by the petitioners herein before the Civil Court seeking for amendment in the reference application and the same was allowed by the Civil Court against which the respondent 1 being the beneficiary approached this court in W. P. No. 33131 of 2003 and this Court looking into the nature of the order passed by the reference Court observed that whenever applications are filed and contested, Courts are required to pass reasoned orders, so that either in an appeal or a revision, the concerned authorities would be able to appreciate the reasons and pass necessary orders. Since, the same had not been done and as the order was not a speaking order, this Court felt that it required to be set aside and accordingly, passed an order on 30-3-1998 setting aside the order of the civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur.

(3.) IT is needless to refer to the said order of the Civil Judge in detail. However, for the purpose of convenience, the operative portion of the order passed by the Civil Judge is reproduced here which is as under: "heard the arguments on LA. No. I. Perused the documents and affidavit by the claimant. LA. No. I is allowed". Looking into the nature of the order passed, this Court opined that it can hardly be said to be an order in the judicial sense of the term.