- (1.) STATE of Kerala is the appellant. Challenge is against the Judgment of Sub Court, Trivandrum in L.A.R. No.215/82. 71.74 Ares (1 acre 77 cents) in Pallichal Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk was acquired from the respondents for Defence Department Notification under S.3 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11-10-1977. Award was passed on 16-9-1980 and possession was taken on 25-10-1980. Land Acquisition Officer granted land value at the rate of Rs.370/- per Are (Rs. 150/- per cent) while the claim was for Rs. 1000/- per cent. Being not satisfied with the award the claimant sought reference. The reference court in L.A.R. No.215/82 granted enhancement and fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.2161/- per are (Rs.875/- per cent). The appellant contends that the enhancement granted by the reference court is totally unjustified.
(2.) THERE is a cross appeal filed by the respondent/claimant. He claims statutory benefit as per the amended provisions contained under S.23 (1A) and S.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Before examining the contentions raised by the appellant and respondent/ claimant on merits of the case we would consider certain legal objections raised by the respondent, which would go to the root of appreciation of evidence in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appellant cannot be permitted to rely on the notes on award etc., in this case so long as it has not been marked at the time of examination of RW 1 before the reference court. According to the learned counsel, documents forwarded along with the reference statement by the District Collector to the Court are not be treated automatically as evidence in the case unless they are proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is further pointed out that in this case even the reference statement is not in accordance with law. Further objection is against reliance made by the appellant on the basis of document which was marked as Ext. R2 through RW. 1 without examining the vendor or vendee of the document.
(3.) PROVISIONS regarding Collector's reference statement to the court as contained in S.19 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 read as follows:- "19. Collector's statement to the Court - (1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the court, in writing under his hand.- a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, building or standing crops thereon ; b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land; c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under S.5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under S.11; ((cc) the amount paid or deposited under sub-section (3-A) of S.17; and) d) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. 2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered By, the parties interested respectively. "Clause (cc) was added by amendment in the year 1984. Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 contained similar provisions except clause (cc). We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the statement of reference made by the District Collector in this case to the Sub Judge, Trivandrum does not satisfy the requirement of S.19. The reference statement in this case is in the form of a letter, which reads as follows:- ' I am forwarding herewith the case records in respect of L.A.C. No. 25/80 duly listed with the statement of particulars for adjudication under S.20 of the KLA Act. This case relates to the acquisition of 71.14 arcs of land in Sy. No. 237/1A/38-1 of Pallichal Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk for the Defence Department. The award in this case has been passed on 16-9-1980 as item No. 10 of AS No.3/80-81. The land has been taken possession and handed over to the Military Authorities on 25-10-1980. An amount of Rs.47162.88 has been awarded to the parties as L. A. compensation. The amount of compensation has been paid under protest and the individual has filed reference application on 3-11-1980. Yours faithfully, sd/- Special Tahasildar. "List of documents in LAC.25/80. 1. Mahazar 2. Sketch 3. 9 (3) Notice 4. Claim Statement 5. D.V.S. 6. Award 7. 12 (2) Notice 8. Reference Application" We have no hesitation to observe that the above letter will not satisfy the requirement of S.19 for reference statement. Similar view had been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Mariamma Abraham and another, AIR 1969 Ker. 265. The learned Government Pleader submitted that even though the reference is not strictly in the form in which it should be as per the provisions contained under S.19(1), since all the relevant materials are available under the covering letter and the documents enclosed therein it should be taken as substantial compliance and no separate statement is necessary. It is seen that an objection was taken in the statement filed by the respondent in the reference court that the reference was not maintainable and that it was not in accordance with law. The fact that such a contention is raised is seen from the judgment also. The objection was not further developed nor any argument seen addressed on that ground. Both sides therefore proceeded to contest the matter on merits and if we are now to hold that the reference was not proper it will not certainly be in the interest of the respondent/claimant. The appellant has not raised such an objection before us. Under these circumstances, we do not propose to interfere with the judgment of court below on the ground that there was no proper reference. But we take this opportunity to alert District Collectors to take more care while drawing up reference statement and to follow the requirements contained in S.19(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. If the statement of reference is not in accordance with S.19(1), it is open to the office of the subordinate courts to return the same on the ground that the reference statement is not in accordance with law.;