Mookerjee, J. - (1.) In view of the order we propose to pass in this appeal, it is not necessary to make a detailed statement of the facts. Certain plots within Mouja, Surul, in Touji No.26 of the Birbhum Collectorate were notified in 1943, for compulsory acquisition and the declaration was published in February, 1946. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on the 26th September, 1946. An application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by some of the claimants. An objection was raised on behalf of the Governor before the Judge that the reference was not maintainable. During the hearing of the reference the Secretary of the Viswa Bharati for whose benefit the plots were being acquired moved from time and filed certain documents in the case. The learned Judge dismissed the Reference with costs to the Province of West Bengal as it then was and to the Viswa Bharati. The award as made by the Collector was affirmed by the Land Acquisition Judge.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the claimants who had made the reference. It appears that in course of the hearing before the Land Acquisition Judge the records in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector had been called for. Some only of the papers were exhibited in the present case. Reference, however, was made in the judgment passed by the learned Judge to other papers from the records of the Land Acquisition Collector though such papers had not been marked as exhibits, or even proved in the present case. This was irregular. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision of law under which all the papers in the records of the Land Acquisition Collector, whether in course of proceedings before the declaration had been made, or, after thereof, but before the award was made, automatically become a part of the record of the Land Acquisition Judge when the case comes on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Only such papers out of the Collector's records, as are proved or marked as exhibits according to law, are available to the Court for resting the decision along with such other evidence as may be adduced by the parties. If the case is to be decided by us at this stage, all those unexhibited papers which are referred to by the Judge are to be expunged, and the case decided according to law. The parties also were not properly advised when the proceedings were going on before the Judge. It has been represented by both the parties before us that under the above circumstances and for a proper adjudication of all the points in issue it is necessary to give opportunities to the parties to adduce further evidence. Some portion of the Collector's records may then be proved. We think this is the proper course to be followed.
(3.) We should, however, at this stage deal with the objection raised on behalf of the State about the competency of the Reference. This point will not be raised again at the subsequent stage. On behalf of the State it is pointed out that the award as made by the Collector was in favour of different sets of persons. The Collector did not fix the market-value of the land under acquisition, but determined what was payable to each set independently. This was really, it is contended, apportionment of the total amount of compensation payable. Only the parties making a reference are entitled to the enhanced valuation, if on such reference the amount of compensation as may be or have been satisfied, the Collector must under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act reference such dispute for the decision of the Court. In the apportionment proceedings the State is not a necessary party at all. All the contesting claimants, who are interested in the apportionment must be impleaded.;