Chitambaresh, J.

Is there any bar for the civil court to entertain a suit for compensation by the claimants for lands lost in excess of that acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ['the Act' for short] ? The issue may crop up under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 also and hence this detailed consideration.

2. Lands belonging to the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 were acquired by the first defendant State on the requisitioning of the second defendant Kerala State Housing Board ['the Board' for short]. Award No.5 dated 28.9.1986 and Award No.1 dated 18.6.1992 were passed in respect of 5.06 Ares and 35.06 Ares totalling to 40.12 Ares which gave rise to L.A.R.Nos.478/87, 205/86 and 206/86. L.A.R.Nos.478/87 and 205/86 were for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act whereas LAR.No.206/86 was under Section 31(2) of the Act for apportionment of compensation. The judgment in L.A.R.No.205/86 was the subject matter of L.A.A.No.565/1994 by the State and L.A.A.No.580/1994 by the claimants whereunder the value of lands was enhanced. L.A.R.No.206/86 was disposed of recording a compromise in respect of 35.06 Ares however granting liberty to the parties to institute a suit for compensation in respect of the lands not covered by the reference. It is how the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming compensation on behalf of defendants 3 and 4 also against defendants 1 and 2 for the lands taken possession of in excess by 2.80 Ares.

3. The court below has decreed the suit for realisation of money awarding compensation for the 2.80 Ares of land taken possession of in excess to the tune of Rs. 3,53,220/- with interest thereon. The Board has come up in appeal contending inter alia that the suit itself is barred in as much as the claimants have to work out their remedy within the four corners of the Act. The claimants not having succeeded in the reference under Section 18 of the Act are precluded from instituting a suit invoking Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Board pointed out that an Advocate Commissioner was not deputed in the suit to prove the extent of encroachment and that the report and plan in the land acquisition references are of no avail. The Board lastly contended that the court below has erred in granting solatium and interest as if it is a land acquisition reference in computing compensation for the alleged loss.

4. We heard M/s. K. Narayanan and Denny Devassy, Advocates on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.B. Premachandra Prabhu, Advocate as amicus curiae.

5. Let us first advert to the relevant provisions in the Act as regards the measurement and identification of the land proposed to be acquired thereunder in regard to which the compensation is payable. Section 4(2) of the Act empowers any officer authorised by the Government to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and mark the boundaries thereof. Section 8 of the Act enables the Collector to cause the land to be marked out (if not already done under Section 4 of the Act) and measured for the purpose of making a plan thereof. Section 9(2) of the Act obliges the Collector to give public notice stating the particulars of the land so needed in order to facilitate the persons interested to raise objections including its measurement. Section 11(1) of the Act mandates the Collector to conduct an enquiry into the objections as regards the measurement, value and interests and to make an Award specifying the details. Section 18(1) of the Act permits the claimants to require the matter to be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court even if the objection pertains to the measurement. Thus the Act is a complete code in itself to raise an objection as regards the measurement of the land proposed to be taken and the determination of its extent and boundaries.

6. The above is precisely why the Supreme Court has