By this civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has questioned the order dated 17.6.92 (Annexure IX) passed by Shri DP Lytand, Special Judicial Officer, Shillong, in LA Case No. 37 (K)-46 (K) and 50 (K)-105 (K) of 1990 enhancing the Collector's award of compensation for the land from Rs. 25,26,703.76 (Annexure VI) to Rs. 84.43,652.18. 2. In short the facts are as follows : On request made by the petitioner the Collector of Shillong proceeded to acquire an area of 1,56,040 square metres of land from village Kashimara (near Bangladesh Border in Khasi Hills) for drilling as they hoped to get oil. On 21.12.87 there was a joint verifications of land by the petitioner, the Collector and the people to whom the land belonged. After verification an agreement was signed on 5.4.8F (Annexure II) between the land owners and the Collector (Additional DC) following which the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,33,347.00 on 13.6.88 by bank draft (Annexure IV) as advance towards compensation which would be determined later on. Then on 14.4 88 the Collector assessed and fixed the full compensation at Rs. 25,26,703.76 (Annexure VI) and accordingly, made the award for this amount. As per the said agreement dated 5.4.88 the Collector had handed over possession of the land to petitioner on 13.6.88. By a corri­gendum dated 21.8.89 the area acquired was reduced to 1,50,163 square metre. The petitioner deposited the awarded amount in full and by latter dated 21.8.89 (Annexure VII) the Collector certified to the petitioner that all rates regarding land, trees etc. in connection with the above project were quite reasonable. After making payment to land owners a balance of Rs. 3,07,489.79 remained. The Collector perhaps would have refunded this unpaid amount to the petitioner; but, in the meantime, the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong, called for the record from the Collector (vide order sheet dated 29 10 91 of the Collector's file at page 28) and that was how the Special Judicial Officer assumed jurisdiction without a reference from Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. After getting delivery of possession, the petitioner started works in full swing and incurred heavy expenses on construction of approach road, bridges and culverts without being aware that the Special Judicial Officer took up the cases for enhancement of the award. After getting delivery of possession, the petitioner started works in full swing and incurred heavy expenses on construction of approach road, bridges and culverts without being aware that the Special Judicial Officer took up the cases for enhancement of the award. The Collector, however, contested the claim f r enhancement before the Court of Special Judicial Officer. 3. After 3 years and 3 months the Collector, by letter dated 21.12.92 (Annexure VIII) informed the petitioner that "some of the land owners had gone to the Court for enhancing the amount of award and now the Court has passed decree for enhanced amount. Saying that a balance of Rs. 3,07,489.7d still remained with him from previous deposit, the Collector requested the petitioner to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 4,55,111.96 to satisfy the enhanced decree. The petitioner then took out certified copy of the judgment of the learned Special Judicial Officer and found with surprise that subsequently the Collector's award had been enhanced by the Special Judicial Officer behind their back, to Rs. 84,83,652.18. 4. The appeal provision under section 54 was then regulated by this Court in Hindustan Paper Corporation vs. Bijay Kumar Sarkar, (1990) 1 GLR (NOC) 10 held thus : "Land Acquisition Act, 1894, section 54-Appeal against the award of the Reference Court-Whether the Corporation/Company for whose benefit the land is acquired under the Act not being a party to the reference made under section 18 of the Act in the Court of the District Judge, can prefer an appeal under section 54 of the Act-Held We are of the opinion that as the interest of the appellant was fully protected by the Collector, the present appeal of the appellant is not maintainable. The appeal was therefore held to be incompetent and dismissed." 5 In view of this legal position the petitioner requested the Collector to prefer an appeal; but by latter dated 15.3.93 (Annexure X) the Collector sent this reply : "I am to say that the matter of appeal against the 65 decrees passed by the Reference Court in Ref. LA Case No. 37 (K) to 105 (K) of 1990, was taken up with the Senior Government Advocate, Meghalaya, at Gauhati High Court. Our Senior Government Advocate has informed that 65 (sixty five) appeals will have to be filed against the 65 decrees where the Court fee will be about Rs. LA Case No. 37 (K) to 105 (K) of 1990, was taken up with the Senior Government Advocate, Meghalaya, at Gauhati High Court. Our Senior Government Advocate has informed that 65 (sixty five) appeals will have to be filed against the 65 decrees where the Court fee will be about Rs. 14,000/- each, that is totalling about Rs. 9.00 lakhs. The State Government cannot bear such expenses. It is therefore difficult for the Collector to file the appeal. Since ONGC is the paying department of land compensation and also the owner of the acquired land, you are advised to prefer the appeal against the said decrees. But if you would not file the appeal, the decretal amount may be deposited as early as possible with the Court of the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong, which Court has ordered the decrees/Awards ot enhancement." Being left with no appeal remedy, the petitioner brought this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. By order dated 29 4 93 this Court stayed exe­cution of the impugned judgment. Respondents did not file counter affidavit. 6. The contention of Mr. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, is in trying the cases without notice to the petition r and enhancing the award the learned Special Judicial Officer adopted procedure entirely unknown to law and this has wholly vitiated his judgment of enhancement. 7. Section 20 of the Act provides : "20. Service of notice-The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine toe objection and directing the appearance before the Court on the day, to be served on the following person, namely, (a) the applicant; (b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them be have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and (c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector." He relied on Neelagangabai vs. State of Karnaiaka, reported in the Supreme Court on Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 1950-1990 (page-1) wherein it was held at para 3 thus : "Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation. In this back ground the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the Court of ref fence to have caused a notice served on the respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the com­pensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent-Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the Court, the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and not binding on the Corporation. We are in agreement with this view." 8. Mr. B. Lamare, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya, appeared for respondent No. 2 (Collector), who contested before the Court of Special Judicial Officer, supported the petitioner. Mr. NK Deb, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 (65 claimants) supported the enhancing judgment. His first answer is in view of this Court's decision in (1990) 1 GLR NOC 10.(supra) the revision by the petitioner is not maintainable. I do not think that this decision would help the respondent (claimants) because in that case the Collector had filed appeal and it was in view of Collector's appeal that the Court gave such ruling. In the instant case, the Collector did not file appeal. The other case on which Mr. Deb relied is Major SS Khanna vs. FG Dhilon, AIR 1964 SC 497 . There the Supreme Court stated that if an appeal lies against adjudica­tion directly to the High Court, or to another Court from the decision of which an appeal lies to the High Court, it has no power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction, but where the decision itself is not appealable to the High Court directly or indirectly, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court would not be deemed excluded. As the appeal was not open to the petitioner the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court would not be excluded. The decision rather support! the petitioner, and not the respondent No. 3 ie the claimants. 9. Secondly, it also appears, though the point was not argued, that the learned Special Judicial Officer would not have jurisdiction because the Collector did not make a reference. Section 18 provides as follows '18. The decision rather support! the petitioner, and not the respondent No. 3 ie the claimants. 9. Secondly, it also appears, though the point was not argued, that the learned Special Judicial Officer would not have jurisdiction because the Collector did not make a reference. Section 18 provides as follows '18. Reference to Court - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken : Provided that every such application shall be made : (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2) or within 6 months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire." In the instant case respondent No. 3 and other claimants did not move the Collector to make reference. It is the Special Judicial Officer who asked the Collector to send the record. From the section it is clear that unless a reference is made by the Collector as provided under the section the Special Judicial Officer did not have the jurisdiction to try and enhance the award. 10. In the result I have to hold that in the absence of reference from the Collector the learned Special Judicial Officer has acted not only without jurisdiction but his judgment is also vitiated for non-compliance with the requirement of section 20 of the Act and for violation of the rules of natural justice. The petition therefore is allowed and the judgment of the learned Special Judicial Officer is set aside. The claim for enhancement made by the land owners is dismissed but without costs.