The main legal point established is the requirement for a proper reference under Section 20 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on the matter.

This appeal arises out of a land acquisition proceeding begun under the provisions of the (Travancore) Land Acquisition Act and completed under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The relevant provisions of the two Acts are identical and therefore we shall refer, only to the provisions of the latter Act which we shall hereafter call, the Act.

2. The property acquired, 12.55 acres of land, situated, we are told by the learned Advocate General, near the beach within the limits of the Corporation of Trivandrum, belonged to three brothers who were at the relevant time residing in Malaya. They are Christians and held the property as tenants-in-common. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to them by the Collector (a Special Land Acquisition Tahsildar. whom we shall hereafter refer to as the Land Acquisition Officer) on 12-3-1963 calling upon them to file their claims by 29-3-1963. The notices, it would appear, were sent by registered surface-mail, and, seeing that the section requires at least 15 days' time to be given for filing claims, this conduct on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer calling for claims from persons resident in Malaya within 17 days of the issue of the notice, probably less after the posting of the communication hardly impresses us as a responsible way of discharging statutory functions affecting valuable property rights. The notices were actually received by the owners only on 26-3-1963. Four days later, on 30-3-1963, the award was made allowing compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per cent. This was, of course, before the owners could put in their claim. Notice of the award was issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 30-3-1963 and it admittedly reached the owners on or before 2-5-1963. On 2-5-1963 a communication. Ext. C 1, purporting to be by all the three brothers but signed by only one of them was sent to the District Collector, Trivandrum. This was in the form of an appeal against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. It said that the compensation awarded was inadequate, that on the evidence put forward the owner should get at least Rs. 5000/- per acre, and that even at that price it was impossible to get land in the locality. It ended up with the prayer that the appeal should receive the sympathetic consideration of the District Collector and that it was left to him to enhance the valuation at his discretion. A copy of this communication was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer and seems to have been received by him on 10-5-1963. On 28-8-1963, one of the brothers who had come to India armed with a power of attorney from the remaining two made a formal application for a reference to the Court under Section 20 of the Act, (Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) and, on the basis of this application, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the Court.

3. The Court held that the reference was incompetent since the application under Section 20 had been made out of time. It declined to regard Ext. C 1 as an application under Section 20. Nevertheless, it considered the claim made by the owners on the merits, and, on the evidence, came to the conclusion that the proper compensation for the land was Rs. 60/- per cent. And notwithstanding that it was of the view that the reference to it was incompetent, it proceeded to make an award to the effect that the owners were entitled to get only the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and rejecting their claim for enhanced compensation. The owners have appealed claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 80/- per cent. The case has come up before us since a Division Bench of this court thought that the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala, 1962 Ker LJ 510 : (AIR 1963 Ker 3 (FB)) to the effect that the Court should not entertain a reference made on an application preferred out of time required reconsideration.

4. The Court gets jurisdiction only on a reference being made to