Rights under land acquisition statutes for just compensation are constitutional and cannot be waived; the procedural integrity established by law must be upheld for valid acquisition.

1. Efficacy of an award passed under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act 1894 after the promulgation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, Act 30 of 2013) has arisen for consideration in this appeal preferred by the claimant. Though the claimant sought reference under S.18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, the Subordinate Judges court, Thalassery by judgment and decree dated 15/06/2020 upheld the award passed by the Collector, granted enhancement to the claimant and answered the reference in L.A.R. No.1 of 2016. Aggrieved by the same the claimant is before us in appeal.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
An extent of 0.1850 hectares of land comprised in Re - survey No.50/2 (New Survey No.50/7) of the Eruvatty village of Thalassery taluk was acquired for the purpose of establishing SV / IP Station of Gas Authority of India Limited. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,27,605/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Five only). Dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under S.18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act.

3. Before delving further into the issues presented before us in the present appeal, we need to notice certain indisputable facts. The date of S.4(1) notification was on 14/12/2012. The award was passed on 15/03/2014 fixing the land value at Rs.13,734/- per cent. The erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, Act 30 of 2013) on 01/01/2014. Pursuant to the award dated 15/03/2014, the land was taken possession on 11/04/2014. The reference court answered the reference on 15/06/2020. While answering the reference, the reference court noticed that though the claimant contended that since the award was passed after the enactment of the new Act, he was entitled to get compensation as per the scheme under Act 30 of 2013, subsequently, after the argument was concluded, he had agreed to the award be passed as per S.18 of the erstwhile . Therefore, the reference court concluded that in view of the endorsement 'waving his right under the new Act', the court can proceed under the earlier Act, and, accordingly rendered its findings.

4. Certain intricate questions have presented itself before us for consideration. For the sake of convenience, we deem it appropriate to broadly frame the following questions which arise for consideration.
a. Whether the award dated 15/03/2014 has any efficacy of law in view of the promulgation of Act 30 of 2013.
b. Whether the claimant can waive his right to claim compensation under the New Act.
c. Whether the Sub Court, Thalassery, had jurisdiction to answer the reference.

5. We have heard Sri. Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, the learned counsel appearin