ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1990 passed by learned District Judge, Jammu, in land reference case No. 32/Arb. By means of the impugned judgment compensation as awarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition has been enhanced from Rs. 2000/ - per kanal to uniform rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per kanal, besides solatium and interest under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 AD) (hereinafter referred to as Ëœthe Act).
(2.)FACTS which are not in dispute are that Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 10.12.1982 and proceedings under section 6 of the Act are dated 25.2.1983, award was passed by the Collector (Assistant Commissioner) Land Acquisition, Jammu, on 26.4.1983, which is EX. RWCL.
(3.)LEARNED counsel appearing for the parties were further not at variance that the possession of the land under acquisition was taken on 8.9.1983. Land is comprised under khasra no. 820 measuring 14 kanals 17 marlas situate at village Jhajar Kotli, Tehsil and District Jammu. Its original owner was Sh. Dessu and the public purpose for which the land was acquired alongwith khasra no. 816 was for setting up a Mulbery Nursery by the Sericulture Development Department of the State. Operative portion of the award dt. 26.4.1983 is to the following effect:
"1, Chaman Lal Bhushan, Collector (Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Jammu, therefore hereby make the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 43,700/ - (Forty three thousand seven hundred only) in the subject land acquisition case. Notice under subsection (2) of section 12 of Land Acquisition Act be got served upon all the interested persons in the land through Tehsildar, Jammu."

Here it may be worthwhile to refer to Section 12 of the Act, which is to the following effect:

"12. Award of Collector when to be final. (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and the value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested, as are not present personally or by their representative when the award is made."

After passing of the impugned award, a reference was claimed by Shri Dessu, the original owner, who was father of the present respondents, requiring the Collector that the matter be referred by him for determination of the court. This reference application is at pages 14 to 22 of the file of the court below and reply of the Collector -appellant herein, is at page 23. Paragraph 15 of the land reference application at page 18 of the trial court file, is to the following effect:

"15. That the petitioner who is the owner of the land situated at Jaggar Kotli and is also occupier and a tiller of the land in dispute and informed the petitioner that the land mentioned above has been acquired by the Government (Collector) and wanted to take possession of the land in question and the possession of the land was not given to Patwari who came for acquisition purposes on the date of knowledge i.e. 8th September, 1983, and the petitioner objected for the acquisition as he has no knowledge about the same nor he was a party to the proceedings upto the date of Award. The Award thus made at the back of the petitioner requires to be set aside and revised assessment inclusive of damages, interest etc. may also be accordingly assessed." Besides this number of other factors were pleaded by Shri Dessu in the reference petition preferred by him under Section 18 of the Act.

Ordinarily appellant was expected and in fact should have filed a detailed para wise reply to the reference petition but instead of doing so a twelve lined omnibus reply was filed which is to the following effect:

"Sir,

Respondent respectfully submits his objections to the aforementioned reference as under:

1. That the reference is time barred.

2. That the award passed by the Collector is strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity.

3. That the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector was awarded after keeping in view the market rate of the land prevelent in the locality at the time of acquisition of land. It is, therefore, prayed that the reference may kindly be rejected. Respondent through Advocate Sd/ - (E. A. Tak)

Advocate."

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties issues were framed by the trial court which are to the following effect:

"1. Whether the compensation awarded by the respondent to the petitioner was not according to the market rate prevalent at the time of acquisition of the land? OPP

2. In case issue No. 1 is proved what was the market rate of the land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP

3. Whether the reference is time barred? OPR.

4. Relief -

After conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment and decree has been passed, hence this appeal.