Judgement

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. :- Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and the State.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

An extent of 2.81.20 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.1780/1, 1780/4, 1780/9, 1781/1,8,9, 1889/1,2 of the Kadakampally Village was acquired for the purpose of establishment of E.E.C. market at Anayara. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) was published on 29.5.1992. The possession of the land was taken on 23.7.1992 and an award was passed on 13.7.1992 fixing a total compensation of Rs.45,08,111/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, applications were filed before the Land Acquisition Officer for referring the matter for adjudication to the Reference Court.

4-5. The District Collector by his letter dated 18.7.1994 forwarded the relevant records in respect of the matter for determination under Section 18 of the Act. Along with the said letter, the names and addresses of the interested parties, who had filed the reference applications, were also furnished in the separate sheet attached. As per the sheet attached with the said covering letter, the appellant No.1-P.K. Sreekantan submitted his application dated 4.8.1993. Respondent No.1 P. Sreekumaran Nair submitted his application dated 26.8.1993 and the claimants 3, 4 and 5 submitted their applications on 4.8.1993. The reference application dated 4.8.1993 was given by the appellant No.1 pursuant to the receipt of the award notice dated 13.7.1993 whereby the claimant was informed of the compensation awarded for the property acquired from him. In the said reference application it was stated that an extent of 86 Ares and 41 Sq. metres of property out of the total extent of 2 acres and 41½ cents of property comprised in Survey No.1889 of Kadakampally Village was obtained by him by virtue of the partition deed dated 21.2.1975. It was specifically pleaded that the property is situated in an important locality within city limits having road frontage and easy access, it is a building site and a garden land and it shall fetch a minimum market value of Rs.5,000/- per cent. It was further stated that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and meagre considering the importance of the locality. The award amount was claimed to have been received under protest and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was requested to refer the matter to the Reference Court for adjudicating the land value. Similar claims were made by the other applicants as well. From the reference application so submitted it could be seen that the dispute was only regarding the amount of compensation awarded to the respective land acquired from each one of the applicants, as according to them, amount awarded is low compared to the market value.

6. Pursuant to the reference so made by the District Collector, the Reference Court issued notice to the parties whereupon the parties filed their respective statements.

7. Various questions were raised in the appeals which were filed before the High Court. In the appeal filed by the present respondents 1 and 2 it was contended that the Court below has no jurisdiction to go beyond the issues of reference. It had exceeded its jurisdiction in going beyond the issues raised in the reference applications and adjudicating disputes not raised by the parties in the reference applications. The appeal by the present appellant related to the appropriation of the compensation awarded. States appeal essentially was against the valuation. As noted above, the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed with the following observation:-

"In the light of the principles as laid down in the above decisions and in the absence of any reference made on the question regarding the extent of the land a