MITTALAL Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in this Civil Revision Petition is covered by an Order of this Court, the main Civil Revision Petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 12.12.2007 made in I.A.No.265 of 2007 in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 2006, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, wherein, the request of the petitioner seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the market value of the land acquired was rejected.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the above Order, it is evident that the learned Judge followed the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Krishna Reddy and others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, Lmd Karim Nagar, Andhra Pradesh reported in 1988 4 SCC 163, wherein, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to go to the spot and after taking the relevant matters into consideration, give a report regarding the nature of the land and its value. Thus, this Court held that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in references arising under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is now settled. The learned Judge also followed the Kerala High Court Order in Satheeshkumar v. Special Tahsildar (LA), reported in 2000-1 KLT 416 and ultimately the order, refusing to appoint Advocate Commissioner, was set aside with a direction to the Reference Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining the market value of the property, subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings.