Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

These appeals pertain to the common judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Thalasserry in L.A.R. Nos.313 and 315 of 2001. Both these cases were references under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act. L.A.R. No.313/01 pertains to the acquisition of a total extent of 25.638 cents in R.S. No.27/5 of Pallikunnu Village in Kannur District while L.A.R. No.315/01 pertains to acquisition of a total extent of 11.390 cents of the same village for the doubling of railway track from Mahe to Payyannur. Under the award pertaining to L.A.R. No.313/01 the total compensation was determined by the awarding officer as Rs.2,99,075/- while under the award pertaining to L.A.R. No.315/01 the total compensation was determined as Rs.1,37,130/-. On the ground that the appellant from whom possession of the acquired property was taken had failed to establish the appellant's title to the acquired property, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the compensation under S.31(2) before the Court and send reference under S.30 arraying the appellant and the State as co-owners.

2. Upon getting notice from the Court below the appellant filed statement contending that the entire property belonged in jenmam to Pallikkunnu Devaswom under the Chirakkal Kovilakam and was outstanding in the possession of the tenants and that by virtue of an assignment from one Neelakandakurup the properties came to the hands of one Sankaran Nair and thereafter as per a registered renewal Marupat No.2232 of 1945 the aforesaid Sankaran Nair attorned to the landlord directly. It was contended further that while Sankaran Nair was so in possession of the property he gifted the properties in favour of his sister, the appellant as per registered gift deed No.543 of 1948; the appellant accepted the gift deed and has been in possession of the properties ever since then; the gift deed mentioned the survey number of the properties as R.S. No.26/8,277 8 and 26/1; the correct survey numbers was 26/8, 27/5 and 26/13; these properties lie contiguously and together and hence the discrepancies in the survey numbers were not noticed at the time when gift deed was executed; but the appellant claimed that she was paying tax in respect of Sy. Nos.26/1,26/8,27/4,27/5,26/6 and 27/13 which is having an extent of 47 cents, 7 cents, 7 cents, 26 cents, 24 cents and 2 cents respectively; there were small houses in the property which were being let out to the tenants by the appellant in R.S. Nos.27/5 and 27/6; one house was occupied by one Mandothan Lakshmanan in the year 1953; the appellant had assigned the said house and 7!/2 cents since upon which the house was situated i.e., 11/2 cents in R.S.No.27/5 and 6 cents in R.S. No.27/6 in favour of the above Lakshmanan by virtue of Assignment Deed No.923 of 1984; the said document will show that the appellant was in possession of the property in R.S. No.27/5 and 27/6; so also the lie of the remaining properties and the payment of tax will clearly show that it was the claimant who is having exclusive title and possession over the entire properties, it was contended. Of these contentions the appellant prayed that in both the cases the entire compensation may be paid to the appellant.

3. The State, the other claimant did not file any statement at all. Before the Court below the evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A4 on the side of the appellant. Ext. Al was the certified copy of the gift deed in favour of the appellant. Ext. A2 was the basic tax receipt. Ext. A3 was a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal, Kannur on 26.2.1977 while Ext.A4 was another certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal, Kannur in respect of a portion of the acquired property.

4. The Court below on an appreciation of the facts and the evidence concluded that the appellant had not obtained certificate of purchase in respect of the entire property at the time of acquisition and Ext. A4 obtained only in 2003 is subsequent to the initiation