EASWARAN S., J.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner’s property was sought to be acquired in terms of the provisions contained under the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act’). Since there was some dispute as regards the title of the property and who exactly is entitled to receive compensation, the land acquisition officer referred the claim under Section 77(2) of the Act to decide the title in respect of 0.17 Ares of property. The claimant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation fixed by the land acquisition officer and hence sought enhancement under Section 64 of the Act. His claim was also referred to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram (the reference court, for short). These references were taken up together, and by order dated 2.4.2024 in L.A.R. No.136 of 2022, the reference court concluded that since the claimant had neither appeared nor adduced any evidence to substantiate his claim, the reference is liable to be answered against the claimant. Accordingly, the reference was ordered. Aggrieved by the judgment passed under Section 64 read with Section 77(2) of the Act in L.A.R. No.136 of 2022, the petitioner filed R.P. No.1 of 2014, along with I.A. No.2 of 2025 for condonation of delay before the reference court. Both these applications were ordered by the reference court by holding that there is no ground to review the judgment dated 24.2.2024, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. It is further held that the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is to file an appeal. This order is impugned in the present original petition.

2. Heard Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.S. Appu, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, and Smt. Nisha George, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The finding rendered by the reference court under Ext.P1 order is per se incorrect and against all notions of law. Merely because the claimant has not appeared will not enable the reference court to conclude that the reference was answered against him. In Khazan Singh (Dead) by Lrs v. Union of India [ (2002) 2 SCC 242]: [(2002) 2 SCC OnLine SC 125], the Supreme Court has held that even if the claimant does not appear before the reference court, it is the duty of the reference court to award just and fair compensation for the land acquired.

4. In the present case, since the reference is both under Sections 64 and 72(2) of the Act, the reference court was obliged to answer the reference under Section 64 based on the records available before the court, which had been forwarded by the land acquisition officer. Therefore, the petitioner/claimant was justified in approaching the reference court with the review application.

5. The finding of the reference court that there is no error apparent on the face of the record also does not appear to be sound to this Court, particularly since the reference court abdicated its duty to answer the reference in accordance with law. Hence, Ext.P1 order certainly falls within the ambit of error apparent on the face of the record, and the court below ought to have exercised the power of review. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

6. Accordingly, this Original Petition is allowed by setting aside Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The reference, L.A.R No.136 of 2022, will stand restored to the files of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner shall appear before the authority on 1.7.2026. He shall be given an opportunity to adduce such evidence as is required for sustaining the claim under Section 64 of the Act. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is not pressing the reference under Section 77(2) of the Act, the reference court shall consider t