The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of reference applications, the nature of appeals, and the maintainability of petitions under Art.227 of the Constitution under the Land Acquisition Act, 1961.

1. A reference application made to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Parur under S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, (Act 21 of 1962) was dismissed by Ext. P7 order on the ground that the plaintiffs-claimants had not made any specific claim before the Land Acquisition Officer; and therefore their claim was rejected under S.27(2) of the Act. This writ petition is to quash the said order.

2. This was referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Isaac, J. as he felt a doubt about the correctness of an earlier ruling of our learned brother Eradi J. in O. P. No. 779 of 1967 in which the learned judge set aside a similar judgment of the civil court. Isaac J. felt that the obvious remedy of the petitioner against the impugned judgment is to file an appeal therefrom. He felt some difficulty in following the judgment of our learned brother Eradi J, and therefore, made this reference to a Division Bench.

3. No appeal will lie against the order under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. S.60 provides that appeals shall lie from the award or from any part of the award of the Court, as if the award or part of the award is a decree passed by a civil court under the provisions of the CPC. S.28 of the Act occurring in Part III provides that every award under that part shall be deemed to be a decree, and the statement of the

grounds of every such award, a judgment, within the meaning of S.2(2) and (9) of the CPC. In this particular case, the court rejected the reference as incompetent. It was conceded by the learned Government Pleader that no appeal would lie against the said order. The petitioner had therefore no remedy by way of appeal.

4. The decision of this Court in Nallakoya v. Administrator, Laccadives (1967 KLT. 395) confirmed by a Division Bench on appeal in 1968 KLT. 60, is only to the effect that the judgment of a civil court cannot be interfered with or quashed under Art.226 of the Constitution. But Art.227 expressly authorises revisional jurisdiction against orders of courts and tribunals. Therefore, we do not think that any objection can be taken to the maintainability of this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution.

5. We proceed to consider the merits of the petition. By our order dated 2nd August 1973, we called for the records from the Sub Court, and also directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the files and the records to show the relevant dates of the notification and declaration issued under S.3, and 6, and the notices issued under S.9 and 10 of the Act. The records are now before us. From an examination of the same, it is seen that the S.6 Declaration was published in the Gazette dated 2-4-1963; the individual notice under S.9 is dated 12-6-1963, and it was published in the gazette dated 2-7-1963. Both these called upon the parties concerned including the petitioners, to be present with their objections and claims, if any, for enquiry on 30tb of July 1963. On that date, Ext. P1 statement was filed by the petitioners The award is dated 18-3-1965. It is beyond dispute that Ext. P1 statement does not make any specific claim to compensation. Therefore, if Ext. P1 alone were to be regarded as a claim made by the petitioner in answer to the notice under S.9 of the Act, the order of the court below (Ext. P7), rejecting the reference) is proper and does not disclose any grounds for interference.

6. But it was contended by the petitioners that they did make a claim specifying the details and particulars of the compensation. Ext. P2 has been produced as a copy of the said claim. There they claim exceeding Rs. 200/-per cent. Ext. P2 is undated. Para.2 of the petition proceeds on the basis that Ext. P1 was filed in answer to the notification under S.3, and Ext. P2 in answer to a notice under S.9. But it is plain that Ext. P1 cannot be regarded as in answer to the S.3 Notification. It has been proved beyond dispute by the production of the Gazette notification that the S.6 Declaration was pub