The main legal point established is that under the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal does not lie from an order regarding apportionment of compensation unless a proper award is made afresh.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order dated 16th March 1962 of the Subordinate Judge of Meenachil in L. A. R. No. 2 of 1960.

2. A plot of land, 13 cents in extent, in survey No. 234/1 of Vellavoor Village was acquired by the State under the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, XI of 1089. The appellant and the first respondent were rival claimants for compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 3rd February 1956 fixing compensation at Rs. 409-8-0 and solatium. The question of apportionment was left for decision by the

District Court. The appellant claimed enhanced compensation, and he applied for reference on 28th February 1956. The Subordinate Judge of Meenachil held that there was no award under S.11, or reference under S.18 of the Act as the question of apportionment of compensation was not decided by the Land Acquisition Officer and that the reference was one under S.27 of the Act (corresponding to S.30 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act). Accordingly, he decided the question of apportionment and sent back the papers to the Land Acquisition Officer for passing an award. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against this order.

3. The first question for decision is whether an appeal lies from this order. An appeal lies only under S.38, which provides:

"Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the award or from any part of the award of the District Court in any proceedings under this Regulation"

S. 25 Provides:

"25 (1) Every award made by the Court shall be in writing, signed by the judge and shall specify the amount awarded under Clause (1) of sub-section (1) of S.22 and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other Classes of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts.

(2) Every such award shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the proceedings under this Part, and by what persons and in what proportions they are to be paid.

(3) If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Division Peishkar ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Division Peishkar did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Government shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date on which the Division Peishkar took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess in Court.

It is clear from the order under appeal that it is not an award under S.25.

4. A similar case under the Travancore Land Acquisition Act was decided by the High Court of Travancore-Cochin in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Kumaranallore Devaswom I. L. R.1955 T. C. 368. The facts were exactly similar, and the District Judge sent back the case to the Land Acquisition Officer for passing a proper award under S.11. It was held that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer was on his own initiative under S.27 and that it was only when a reference was made under S.18 that the Court got jurisdiction to go into the question of adequacy of compensation. It was further held that the Land Acquisition Officer in making an award had to decide (1) the area of the land, (2) the compensation allowed for the land and (3) the apportionment of the compensation and that it was only in cases in which all the three points had been decided that the award could be deemed a final one under S.11. The High Court also held that in the case of a reference under S.18, the District Court had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Land Acquisition Officer, but that in the case of a reference under S.27, the answer necessarily had to be communicated to the Land Acquisition Officer to enable him to make a final award. This decision is based on an earlier decision of the Travancore High Court in Sirkar v. Narayanan Nambudiripad 35 T. L. R.211. I am in complete agreement with the vi