Ashok Bhushan, C.J.for himself and for A.M.Shaffique, J.

This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a Division Bench vide order dated 13.08.2015.

2. Brief facts need to be noted for answering the reference and deciding the issues raised in this appeal are: An extent of 0.2042 hectare of land comprised in R.S.No.193/4 and 0.0400 hectare of land comprised in Sy. No.277/8 and some other plots of land belonging to the appellant and her mother were acquired for the establishment of 'Naval Academy'. The Land Acquisition Officer gave an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at the rate of Rs.1,15,200/- per hectare (Rs.466.40 per cent). The appellant did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, certain other land owners whose lands were acquired by the same Notification had made application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Land Acquisition reference No.124 of 1987 was decided on 26.07.1989 by the Sub Court, Payyannur enhancing land value to Rs.800/- per cent. Appellant and her mother filed application under Section 28A(1) on 13.03.1990 for redetermination of the compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer allowed the application under Section 28A(1) enhancing compensation payable to the appellant also at the rate of Rs.800/- per cent. Appellant made an application for making reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act on which L.A.R. No.50 of 2004 was registered before the Sub Court, Payyannur. In the above reference, appellant filed certified copies of judgment dated 06.02.1988 in L.A.R. Nos.157 and 158 of 1987, judgment dated 26.07.1989 in L.A.R.No.124 of 1989 and judgment dated 03.09.1997 in L.A.R. No.120 of 1987. Oral evidence was also adduced by the appellant before the Sub Court, Payyannur. Before the Sub Court, the appellant and her mother claimed that in L.A.R. Nos.157 and 158 of 1987 an amount Rs.2,000/- per cent has been granted as enhanced compensation and in L.A.R. No.120 of 1987 an amount of Rs.1,500/- per cent was granted, hence the appellant is also entitled for the same enhancement. It was pleaded that the land of the appellant is similar to that of L.A.R. No.120 of 1987. The Sub Court, Payyannur decided L.A.R. No.50 of 2004 by judgment dated 31.07.2006. It was held that application of the appellant having been filed on the basis of the judgment in L.A.R. No.124 of 1989 where compensation was granted at the rate of Rs.800/- per cent, she is not entitled to claim any other amount on the basis of L.A.R. Nos.120, 157 and 158 of 1987. The Sub Court, however directed for payment of interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Court, Payyannur, appellant filed this appeal before this Court.

3. Before the Division Bench, at the time of hearing the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on various judgments of this Court as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra ([2011] 9 SCC 325) and contended that the Sub Court, Payyannur was fully entitled to take into consideration every land acquisition awards which were produced before that court. It was contended that reference under Section 28A(3) is a reference akin to one under Section 18 and the Sub Court has to arrive at the correct market value of the land and the mere fact that in the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(1) reliance was made on the judgment in L.A.R. No.124 of 1987 was not an inhibition for the Sub Court to award higher compensation. It was contended that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (supra) where the Apex Court held that in a reference made under Section 18 of the Act the claim can be amended, the appellant was entitled to claim a higher amount.

4. Before the reference court, the abov