1. This is an appeal against an award in land acquisition proceedings. The first objection taken is, that the judgment of the District Judge is inadequate on the ground that he has not discussed the evidence in the case, but has relied on the award of the acquisition officer. The contention here is that the statements in the award, such as statements as to contents of certain documents examined by the acquisition officer are not evidence, but must be proved by the production of the documents themselves. So far as the adequacy of the judgment is concerned, it must be observed that the Judge appears to have disposed of the reference as if he were hearing objections to an award as specified in the Act and accordingly he has dealt with the evidence adduced to support those objections and has not dealt with the evidence relied on by the acquisition officer which was not specifically impeached. Appellants contention is supported by an observation in Bommadevara Venkata v. Atmari Subbarayudu [1913] 36 Mad. 395 in which it was said that proceedings under part 3 of the Act are not by way of appeal but that observation must be taken in connexion with the facts of that case. It was a