The court's jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act is limited to considering objections raised by a party who has not accepted the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The court cannot entertain claims for enhanced compensation put forward by parties who had accepted the award and had not applied for a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

1. This appeal by the State is directed against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge at Trivandrum in Land Acquisition Reference No 6/1951 on the file of his court. A plot of land, 84 cents in extent comprised in Survey No. 790 of Cheruvakkal Pakuthy, was acquired by the State on 1-4-1050. This property was owned in equal shares by a mother, Narayani Amma Kuttipparu Amma, and her three sons Sivasankaran Nair, Appukuttan Nair and Parameswaran Pillai. The one-fourth share of Parameswaran Pillai was purchased by Sivasankaran Nair who thus became entitled to a half share in the property. The mother Kuttipparu Amma and her son Appukuttan Nair retained ownership of their respective one-fourth shares. This was the position at the time of the land acquisition proceedings and it was made clear in the written statements filed by Kuttipparu Amma and Sivasankaran Nair before the Land Acquisition Officer. Their claim for compensation was at the rate of Rs. 60/- percent. The Tahsildar prepared a valuation statement fixing the land value at the rate of Rs. 20/- per cent besides the price separately fixed for the trees and building in the property. The Land Acquisition Officer accepted the statement prepared by the Tahsildar and passed an award on the basis of the value estimated by the Tahsildar. It was a single award in favour of all the four sharers to whom the property originally belonged, and no apportionment was made on the basis of the undisputed claims which had been put forward by Kuttipparu Amma and Sivasankaran Nair. This award was objected to by Sivasankaran Nair alone who filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer within the time prescribed by S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and prayed that the case may be referred to the District Court for a decision on the question of the enhanced value claimed for the land and also for apportioning the amount due to his half share in the property. The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the case to the District Judge Trivandrum, under S.18 and 27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act (Act XI of 1089). S.18 and 27 of this Act correspond to S.18 and 30 of the Indian Act (Act I of 1894). After taking the case on the file of the District Court, notices were issued to the State and also to the four persons to whom the property belonged. All these parties entered appearance. Sivasankaran Nair, at whose instance the case was referred to the District Court, was treated as the plaintiff in the case and the State was impleaded as the 1st defendant. Kuttipparu Amma, Appukuttan Nair and Parameswaran Pillai were arrayed as defendants 2 to 4. Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statements conceding that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the property. They also advanced a claim that they should get land value for their respective one-fourth shares at the rate of Rs. 60/- per cent. The State contended that this claim was unsustainable in view of the fact that defendants 2 and 3 had accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and had not applied for the case being referred to the District Judge under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge overruled the objection raised by the State and passed a decree in favour of these defendants also. The land value fixed at Rs. 20/- per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer was raised to double that rate and it was directed that compensation at this rate should be paid not only to the plaintiff for his half share of the property, but also to defendants 2 and 3 in respect of their respective one-fourth shares. It is against such a decree passed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 that the State has preferred this appeal.

2. The position taken up by the appellant gains full support from the relevant sections in the Land Acquisition Act and also from a series of reported decisions where the identical question had come up for consideration. The Land Acquisition Act which empowers th