The Reference Court must determine property title to adjudicate claims in land acquisition cases.

JUDGMENT

Appellant was the 3^rd claimant in L.A.R.No.12 of 2011 on the files of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. During the pendency of this case, the appellant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants

2 to 4.

2. An extent of 1.40 Ares in Survey No.749 of 2019 of Vizhinjam Village was acquired for the purpose of road connectivity to the Sea Port for TRIDA. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,75,263/-. As there was dispute among the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 regarding title of the property, the amount was deposited in the Sub Court. The dispute was referred for adjudication. Respondents 1 and 2 were the A claimants and the appellant was the B claimant before the Reference Court. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim statement contending that the acquired property was under their absolute ownership and possession. On the other hand, the appellant contended that the A claimants have no right over the property. Further he contended that the title of the property is vested with him.

3. During the trial, the 1^st respondent was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. Appellant was examined as BW1 and Exts.B1 to B14 were marked. A file produced by the 3^rd respondent was marked as R1 Series. On conclusion of the trial, the Reference Court held that the claim of respondents 1 and 2 was correct and the contrary claim of the appellant was rejected. Aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal was filed.

4. Though notice was issued and service is complete, none appeared for respondents 1 and 2.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was incumbent upon the Reference Court to decide the dispute regarding title of the acquired property. He pointed out that the reference was made for the sole purpose of deciding the issue of title. However, no firm finding was entered into by the Reference Court on the issue with respect to title of the acquired property. He relied on the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya in Smek Marboh and Others v. The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council and Others [2014 SCC OnLine Megh 57] , wherein the Court held that where a claimant in a land acquisition proceeding can get no share of compensation without establishing his title of the land acquired and therefore, for deciding as to whether the claimant can get a share of the compensation, the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1984 has to decide the claim of the claimant as to whether the claimant can establish his title. The learned counsel also submitted that the Reference Court is vested with the jurisdiction to decide a title dispute as in a suit for declaration of title. However, the Reference Court in the case at hand did not enter into the question of title and rendered any finding with respect to the said issue. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment of the Reference Court cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

7. It is to be noted that the amount was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Court taking note of the dispute regarding the title of the acquired property. Perusal of notice of award issued by the Land Acquisition Officer clearly shows that there was a dispute regarding the title of the acquired property between the appellant and respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, I find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Reference Court was bound to consider the issue regarding the title of the acquired property.

8. I have perused the impugned judgment. The Reference Court has not framed an issue with respect to the dispute regarding title. The Court has analysed the evidence adduced by