JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. 24-957 cents in S. No. 709/4-1 /2 of Chengamanad Village, belonging to the petitioner was the subject of Land Acquisition Case No.851 of 1953 on the file of the District Collector, Trichur. It is agreed that the land concerned was in the Travancore area of the erstwhile T-C State and therefore the law governing the acquisition was as laid in the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, XI of 1089. Pursuant to the notice served on the petitioner under section 9 (3) he filed his statement of claim on 8th March 1954 mentioning therein that he was the kanamdar of the property, the jenmi whereof was Padamittathu Mana and that he has only 17/18 share in the property as might be seen from the Thandaper of that property concerned. The petitioner alone was made a party to the land acquisition proceedings and in spite of his pointing out other persons as interested in the same no notice was taken of that statement by the Collector who proceeded to complete the proceedings and passed the award on 5th February 1957 fixing the petitioner as the owner and occupier of the land and compensation payable for the land as Rs. 229 as. 10. Ex. H is the notice issued to the petitioner under section 12 of the Act. It runs thus : The learned Government Pleader placed before me the records of the LA. Case and they include the original award as also the statement filed by the petitioner under section 9(3). The award shows that the only defendant in the case was the petitioner and that after considering his statement dated 8th March 1954, he has been recorded as " the owner and occupant of the property ".The order then reads : "I award land value for 24.957 cents of land in S. No. 709/4-1/2 of Chengamanad Village, Parur Taluk, at Rs. 8 a cent. The total land value payable in Rs. 199-10-5. The usual 15 per cent solatium amounting to Rs. 29-15-2 is also awarded. The total compensation in this L.A. case is thus fixed at Rs.229-10-0 in round figure. This amount will be paid to the defendant on proof of title and exclusive ownership. 8 a cent. The total land value payable in Rs. 199-10-5. The usual 15 per cent solatium amounting to Rs. 29-15-2 is also awarded. The total compensation in this L.A. case is thus fixed at Rs.229-10-0 in round figure. This amount will be paid to the defendant on proof of title and exclusive ownership. (Sd.) Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition-" There is a post-scriptum in the award apparently in a different hand-writing, without a subscription, which reads : "Padamittathu Manakkal Janmy share 45.60 amodaran Narayanan D Tenants share 184.02 Namboodiri 229.62 Ex. H notice served on the petitioner under section 12 of the Act and the award quoted above make clear that the entire compensation was definitely found payable to the only person impleaded in the proceedings viz., the petitioner. The counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition, Ernakulam) the file appears to have been transferred to the Collectorate, Ernakulam, on the bifurcation of the old Trichur District as Trichur District and Ernakulam District states : " The petitioner presented a claim for compensation on 8th March 1954. This was duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and he passed an award on 5th February 1957. The amount of compensation due to the petitioner was fixed as Rs. 229-10-0 by this Award. " 2. The above statement is clear that the averments of the petitioner in his claim statement that he has only 17/18 share in the property and that he has only the kanom interest in the property leaving its jenmom interest outstanding with Padamittathu Mana, have been considered By the Land Acquisition Officer who passed the award and been overruled, by the implication of the award of the entire compensation for the land to the petitioner himself. The counter-affidavit continues : " Notice of the Award was given to the petitioner and he was asked to be present before the Land Acquisition Officer on 10th April 1957 to receive payment of the compensation. No payment was made to the petitioner on that date as he did not prove his exclusive title to the property." The petitioner has also stated likewise in his affidavit and has made it one of the main grounds of complaint on his part. No payment was made to the petitioner on that date as he did not prove his exclusive title to the property." The petitioner has also stated likewise in his affidavit and has made it one of the main grounds of complaint on his part. Under section 28 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, on making an award under section 11, the Division Peishkar has to pay the compensation awarded by him to the persons found entitled thereto in the award unless prevented by one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the sub-section, and it is not pretended here that any such contingency has occurred in this case. As the award and the notice issued under section 12 to the petitioner to receive the amount showed that he was entitled to the entire compensation found payable by the Land Acquisition Officer he ought to have made the payment forthwith to the petitioner. The petitioner avers that even though he claimed the amount from the Officer he was not paid. Such non-payment is not only irregular but illegal. As the law insists that the payment should be made to the person found entitled to the compensation as per the award, it ought to have been paid forthwith by the Land Acquisition Officer. The third proviso to section 28 (2) leaves any other person who might be interested in the land and therefore lawfully entitled thereto in full or in part to enforce his claim in law against the person who has received the amount from the Land Acquisition Officer. As the award stood, the Land Acquisition Officer had no excuse for not paying the amount to the petitioner. 3. The award as well as the section 12 notice issued in consequence thereof to the petitioner shows that the petitioner should prove his "title and exclusive ownership" before he would be paid the amount. I am at a loss to understand the significance of a direction to prove a fact after it has been decided upon. 4. No section in or rule framed under the Act warrants such a direction which is fundamentally opposed to all known rules of procedure. I am at a loss to understand the significance of a direction to prove a fact after it has been decided upon. 4. No section in or rule framed under the Act warrants such a direction which is fundamentally opposed to all known rules of procedure. Under section 11 of the Act, the Collector has to determine and pass an award on (1) the area of the land, (2) the compensation payable for the land and (3) " an apportionment of such compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land of whom or of whose claim he has information whether or not they have respectively appeared before him''. Section 9 (3) of the Act that imposes a duty on the Collector to serve notices "on all persons known or believed to be interested" in the land being acquired, makes clear that that expression occurring in section 11 denotes the persons to whom notice had been issued under section 9 (3), who in this case is only the petitioner. Having decided that the present petitioner is the sole person interested in the land and therefore entitled to the whole compensation and having passed an award to that effect, to direct that he should later on prove his title and exclusive ownership before he could get payment under the award is quite unwarranted. If the Collector felt any doubt as to the title of the party, he ought to have asked the party to prove his claim before he passed an award. Taking of evidence must precede the determination of the question, and not succeed it. The practice, wherever it exists, of requiring the parties to prove their title to the compensation amount after an award has been made in their favour by the Collector has to be stopped as unwarranted in law and against all principles of judicial procedure. 5. The Deputy Collector's counter-affidavit continues : "the petitioner filed a petition on 29th July 1960 appending thereto copies of certain documents in support of his title to the property. 5. The Deputy Collector's counter-affidavit continues : "the petitioner filed a petition on 29th July 1960 appending thereto copies of certain documents in support of his title to the property. With reference to this document the Tahsildar, Alwaye, was called upon to furnish a report and in the report which he accordingly sent on 3rd October 1960 it was stated that the land in question is Kanom land, the Jenmi is Shri Damodaran Narayanan Namboodiri, Padamattathu Mana, Mekkavu kara, Chengamanad Village, and that the proportionate Jenmikaram of this land is Rs. 2.88. The jenmi was entitled to 16 and 2/3 times of this proportionate jenmikaram of Rs. 2.88 and the balance alone was due to the petitioner. A draft entry to this effect was made by the Clerk concerned on the margin of the copy of the award kept in the payment file. " The 'draft entry' mentioned must be the post scriptum in the award noted above. According to the Deputy Collector it is not part of the award of the Collector but only a clerk's unauthorised note. I find Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Travancore Land Acquisition Act forbids the Collector himself making any amendment in an award once passed by him. The Rule reads : " An award made by a Division Peishkar (Collector) under section 11 and duly announced under section 12 of the Act should not be revised or amended by him even though the persons interested may consent to the revision or amendment. " The petitioner avers that he had no notice of the postscriptum made in the award apparently in modification of its terms except on receipt of Ex. C, a notice dated 20th January 1962 served on him to receive Rs.184.02 as his portion of the compensation amount which obviously was far less than what was notified to him as his dues under the earlier notice Ex. H dated 26th March 1957. The prior notice Ex. H dated 26th March 1957, served on the petitioner under section 12 of the Act, was to receive payment of Rs. 229 As. 10, as the compensation awarded to him. The subsequent notice Ex. C dated 20th January 1962 addressed to the petitioner was to receive Rs. 184.02 as his share of the compensation. The prior notice Ex. H dated 26th March 1957, served on the petitioner under section 12 of the Act, was to receive payment of Rs. 229 As. 10, as the compensation awarded to him. The subsequent notice Ex. C dated 20th January 1962 addressed to the petitioner was to receive Rs. 184.02 as his share of the compensation. The latter notice can be reconciled with the award only if the clerk's post-scriptum in the award is accepted as a modification of the award. Irregularity is not the expression that can characterise such vagaries. Statutory authorities entrusted with the determination of rights of citizens, particularly under expropriatory measures., under the Land Acquisition Act, are bound to act in strict accordance with law and ought not to allow their decisions to be meddled by clerks in their offices to the prejudice of the parties concerned. That practice too, wherever it prevails, has to be put down by the Government. 6. When the unauthorised act of the clerk is ignored, there is no excuse for not having paid the entire compensation awarded to the petitioner. Admittedly he has been paid only Rs. 184.02 on 23rd May 1962 and the balance still remains unpaid. That has to be paid with interest as he has been disposed of the land even before the date of the award 7. Petitioner made an application for reference under section 18 on 18th March 1962. He was told by a memo, Ex. F, that his application was rejected as been belated under the Rules. As the award has been passed in this case on 5th February 1957 and section 12 notice served on the petitioner on 1st April 1957 the application for reference submitted on 18th March 1962 was really belated, and therefore its rejection justified. The prayer to compel a reference as if there was a modified award in the case which the petitioner came to know only on 20th January 1962 cannot be accepted here. In the result, I direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the balance amount of Rs.45.60 remaining unpaid to him under the award with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award. The O.P is dismissed in other respects. I make no order as to cost here. In the result, I direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the balance amount of Rs.45.60 remaining unpaid to him under the award with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award. The O.P is dismissed in other respects. I make no order as to cost here. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded by the Registrar to the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, for issuing instructions to stop the irregularities, pointed out in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, which irregularities, counsel for the petitioner assures me, are of general occurrence now-a-days in land acquisition proceedings.