1. Aggrieved by award dated 18.02.1999 of learned District Judge, Kathua, on a reference under Section 18 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, awarding compensation for seven kanals under survey No.1386 at the rate of Rupees sixteen thousand per kanal and for two kanals and eleven marlas (2 K 11 M) at the rate of Rupees eight thousand per kanal alongwith solatium at the rate of 15 % and interest at the rate of 6% per annum, Collector Land Acquisition, Thein Dam Project, Basoli, has filed this appeal questioning the finding of the District Judge awarding enhanced compensation to the respondent. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellants counsel pointed out that respondent, Amrit Paul, had passed away in 1997 and award made by the learned District Judge without impleading legal representatives of the deceased respondent as respondents in the proceedings, stood vitiated. 3. Sh. Qazi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the award made by the learned District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Act), was nullity in law because the same had been passed in favour of a dead person and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent having omitted to get themselves impleaded as party respondents in the reference proceedings were disentitled to contest the present appeal of the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that reference proceedings under the State Land Acquisition Act are civil proceedings, governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXII of the Code, was, thus, applicable to the proceedings with all its rigour. Omission of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent to file an application before the learned District Judge for their impleadment as party respondents, would result in abatement of the reference under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, debarring the legal representatives to take benefit of the award made in favour of the deceased respondent, which award according to the learned counsel was nullity in law. Relying on Section 51 of the State Land Acquisition Act and Rule 59 of the Land Acquisition Rules for Public Purposes, learned counsel seeks to invoke Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, to support his submission that reference proceedings had since abated. He consequently seeks the annulment of the award by allowing the appeal of the appellant. Mr. Relying on Section 51 of the State Land Acquisition Act and Rule 59 of the Land Acquisition Rules for Public Purposes, learned counsel seeks to invoke Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, to support his submission that reference proceedings had since abated. He consequently seeks the annulment of the award by allowing the appeal of the appellant. Mr. Qazi relies on `Mst. Ram Piari and others v. The Union of India reported as AIR 1978 Delhi 129; `State of West Bengal v. Dwijendra Chandra Sen reported as AIR 1979 Calcutta 182; and `Shrimati Dhani Devi and others V/s Collector, Land Acquisition, Talwara and another reported as AIR 1982 Himachal Pradesh 42. 4. Sh. D. R. Khajuria, learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased- Amrit Paul, on the other hand, submits that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings before District Judge on a reference made by the Collector and omission of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent to get themselves impleaded as party respondents in the reference proceedings would not result in abatement of the proceedings because the proceedings on reference under Sections 18/31 of the State Land Acquisition Act are not governed by the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel submits that invoking Order XXII to the reference proceedings would be doing violence to the expression `save in so far as they may be inconsistent with any thing contained in this Act occurring in Section 51. Learned counsel submits that the Legislature had not intended the reference proceedings to be governed by all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and it was for this reason that procedure for trial of a reference has been specifically prescribed in part III of the Land Acquisition Act, which part does not contemplate impleadment of legal representatives of deceased applicant seeking reference to get themselves impleaded as party respondents in the reference proceedings. Learned counsel refers to `Abdul Karim and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Collector, Bilaspur reported as AIR 1964 Madhya Pradesh 171; and `Shyam Shankar Sahai and others v. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1974 Patna 176 besides a judgment of this Court in `Tej Ram and others v. Collector Land Acquisition Railways, Jammu and ors reported as 1985 KLJ 133. 5. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the cited case law and gone through the records of the case. 6. Before dealing with the question of law raised by learned counsel for the appellant, I will, in brief, state the facts leading to the controversy raised in this appeal. 7. Pursuant to a requisition of Executive Engineer, Project Division (I.B) Ranjit Sagar Dam (Thein Dam) Project Shahpurkandi Township, Punjab, dated 29.03.1985, process for acquisition of land measuring 10028 kanals and 10 marlas was initiated, and finally land measuring 9255 kanals 16 marlas was acquired and a final award issued under No.TDP/LA/5-10 dated 06.04.1994. This award included land measuring nine kanals eleven marlas (9K 11 M) comprised in Survey No.1386, which belonged to one Amrit Paul, son of Meenku, resident of Basohli. Amrit Paul feeling aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed an application before Collector Land Acquisition, Thein Dam Project, Basohli, on 17.05.1994, seeking reference to District Judge, Kathua. According to the applicant, the kind of soil of his land was `Warhal Awal whereas the compensation had been awarded treating this land as `Banjar Qadeem. Satisfied with the requirement of Law, the Collector made reference to learned District Judge, Kathua, vide his No.TDP/LA/6-Kothi/906-11 dated 09.03.1995. After the appearance of the parties before the District Judge, they were put to following issues:- "1. Whether the kind of land acquired is Warhal-Aval and wrongly the respondent has assessed compensation for Banjar Qadeem ? O.P.P. 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what is the just and correct compensation of the land acquired ? O.P.P. 3. Relief." 8. What needs to be noticed is that Amrit Paul was represented by his attorney before learned District Judge, Kathua, who had engaged an advocate to prosecute the cause of his principal Amrit Paul. It comes out from the records that after recording evidence on behalf of the claimant, the same was closed on 16.07.1997. Collector appeared as its own witness on 24.11.1997 and thereafter no evidence appears to have been led by the Collector and ultimately the same was closed on 11.08.1998. It further comes out from the records that Amrit Paul had completed all his evidence, which he wanted to produce before the District Court prior to his death. 9. Collector appeared as its own witness on 24.11.1997 and thereafter no evidence appears to have been led by the Collector and ultimately the same was closed on 11.08.1998. It further comes out from the records that Amrit Paul had completed all his evidence, which he wanted to produce before the District Court prior to his death. 9. It further appears that during the currency of the reference proceedings, neither the advocate representing Amrit Paul nor his attorney brought the factum of the death of Amrit Paul to the notice of the Court, which, it so appears from the application filed by the Collector in this Court, had taken place somewhere in January, 1997. Parties having not brought the factum of death of Amrit Paul to the notice of the District Court and unaware about the death of Amrit Paul, the Court appears to have decided the reference vide its award impugned in this appeal. 10. The appellant filed appeal in this Court arraying Amrit Paul, deceased, alone as respondent and on coming to know about the death of Amrit Paul, filed CMP Nos.76/2000 and 77/2000 on 03.04.2000, seeking condonation of delay in filing application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent and permission for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent respectively. These applications were allowed by the Court by order dated 19.10.2000, which reads, thus:- "I have taken up the CMP seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondent. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case I allow this CMP. CMP NO:77/2000 has been filed for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent. Mr. Khajuria appearing for the legal heirs has no objections to this CMP. CMP is accordingly allowed and legal heirs are ordered to be brought on record in place of the deceased respondent. Index be changed. Mr. D. R. Khajuria appears for all the heirs. 11. In the the background of above facts, I will now deal with the issue raised by the appellant. 12. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in a case `Mst. Ram Piari and others v. The Union of India reported as AIR 1978 Delhi 129, while considering a similar issue, held as follows:- "18. A combined reading of Ss. 11. In the the background of above facts, I will now deal with the issue raised by the appellant. 12. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in a case `Mst. Ram Piari and others v. The Union of India reported as AIR 1978 Delhi 129, while considering a similar issue, held as follows:- "18. A combined reading of Ss. 18 to 26 of the Act, noted above, does not show that any obligation is cast on the Court to make an award on the failure of the applicant, at whose instance reference is made, to adduce evidence to challenge the quantum of compensation offered to him by the Collector or lay a challenge that the measurement taken by the Collector in respect of the land or property acquired was not properly made. In such a case the Court is not to embark upon an enquiry on its own volition nor it is the duty of the Collector to adduce evidence before the Court to justify the award made by him. On a party laying challenge to the award made by the Collector retreating from the reference during the proceedings before the Court, no obligation is cast on the Court to make an award. 19. As noted earlier S. 21 of the Act restricts the scope of the enquiry to a consideration of the interests of the persons at whose behest the Collector makes the reference on their applying to the Collector to make the reference. That being so, it is incumbent on them to pursue their claim as provided under the Act. In the event of the death of a person at whose instance the reference was made the right to continue the reference survives to his legal representatives. It is for the legal representatives if they choose to purse the reference to apply to the Court for being brought on the record to enable them to prosecute the reference. No obligation is cast on the Collector to furnish the names and addresses of the legal representatives of a deceased claimant to keep the reference alive. The reference is to be answered and an award given by the Court only on evidence being produced before it by the claimant who challenges the award given by the Collector. If no evidence is led the reference has to be declined. The reference is to be answered and an award given by the Court only on evidence being produced before it by the claimant who challenges the award given by the Collector. If no evidence is led the reference has to be declined. The provisions of the Act do not cast any obligation on the Collector to justify his award. It is only when a claimant produces evidence before the Court and succeeds in showing that the award made by the Collector is inadequate that the Collector is to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Act itself does not prescribe the procedure applicable to the proceedings before the Court while hearing a reference application. Sec. 53 of the Act, however, makes the provisions of the Code applicable to these proceedings. Accordingly the procedure laid down in the Code has to be followed by the Court in deciding a reference application. 20. The procedure laid down in the Code being applicable to these proceedings, it cannot be urged that the applicability of the provisions of Order 9 and Order 22 of the Code are not attracted to the proceedings in the Court." 13. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court took a similar view in `State of West Bengal v. Dwijendra Chandra Sen reported as AIR 1979 Calcutta 182, and held as follows:- "12. By virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act the provisions of Civil P.C. are applicable to all proceedings before the Court under the Act unless such provision in the Code is inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. Any provision in the Land Acquisition Act would not appear directly to be inconsistent with the principle of substitution under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. The reference under that Act cannot be regarded in any way different from an ordinary Civil Proceeding. In this view of the matter, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act or an appeal arising out of an award would be attracted by Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Alihusain Abbasbhai v. Collector, Panch Mahals, reported in AIR 1967 Guj 118, had occasion to consider the case reported in AIR 1964 Madh Pra 171. Bhagwati, J. (his Lordship as he then was) was unable to accept the decision as correct. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Alihusain Abbasbhai v. Collector, Panch Mahals, reported in AIR 1967 Guj 118, had occasion to consider the case reported in AIR 1964 Madh Pra 171. Bhagwati, J. (his Lordship as he then was) was unable to accept the decision as correct. That decision , according to him, proceeds on the hypothesis that once a reference is made by the Collector, it must of necessity terminate in an award of the Court and on that hypothesis it works out the conclusion that even if the applicant does not appear or produce evidence in support of the objection, the reference cannot be dismissed but an award must be made even though such award be in the same terms as the award of the Collector and equally if the applicant dies and his heirs do not make an application to bring themselves on record, the reference cannot abate, but the collector must supply the names of the heirs to the Court and the Court must give notice of the reference to the heirs and then proceed to make an award, which in the absence of evidence in support of the objection may be in the same terms as the award of the Collector. This conclusion is clearly not justified by the scheme and language of the Sections. But though the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were found to be applicable in a proceeding under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act." 14. A Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in `Shrimati Dhani Devi and Ors. v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Talwara and another reported as AIR 1982 HP 42, too, held that provisions of Order XXII of Code of Civil Procedure were applicable to the proceedings on reference under Section 18 of the Act and it cannot be said that once a reference has been made the Court is bound to give an award even though the necessary party is not before the Court. Paragraph 17 of this judgment reads, thus:- "17. We do not agree with the view that once a reference has been made the Court is bound to give an award. The scheme of the Act is that the Collector makes an award which is an offer to the claimant whose land has been acquired. If the offer is accepted the matter ends. We do not agree with the view that once a reference has been made the Court is bound to give an award. The scheme of the Act is that the Collector makes an award which is an offer to the claimant whose land has been acquired. If the offer is accepted the matter ends. But if the claimant does not accept the offer, he has a right to have the compensation judiciously determined. For this he has to make an application under S. 18 of the Act asking the Collector to make a reference to the Court. In this application he is required to state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. The Collector is required to give the necessary information mentioned in S. 19 of the Act to the Court while making a reference. Once the reference is registered by the Court it is required to serve a notice on the applicant and others. In other words, proceedings start before the Court when it takes cognizance of the reference by registering it. Since the applicant has raised objections to the award made by the Collector, it is but natural that he should support his objections. But in case the applicant disappears from the scene, what should the Court do? Under S. 26 of the Act the Court, while making its award, is required amongst others, to give the grounds of awarding each amount. In the absence of the applicant the Court cannot justify the amount awarded by the Collector on the ground that applicant is no more interested in supporting the objections raised by him. In these circumstances relevant provisions of the Code, which are not inconsistent with the Act, can be made applicable because of S. 53 of the Act. There is nothing in the Act which militates against the legal representatives of the deceased applicant being required to be brought on record so that the proceedings can continue. The provisions of O. 22, in our judgment, are applicable to the proceedings on reference under the Act." 15. There is nothing in the Act which militates against the legal representatives of the deceased applicant being required to be brought on record so that the proceedings can continue. The provisions of O. 22, in our judgment, are applicable to the proceedings on reference under the Act." 15. View taken by their Lordships of Delhi, Calcutta and Himachal Pradesh High Courts in the aforementioned decisions holding applicability of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings on Collectors reference under Section 18/31 before the Court, in my opinion, with due respect to the learned Judges, may not be correct exposition of law on the subject in issue. I would like to look at the issue from a different angle. Compulsory acquisition of land contemplated by the Land Acquisition Act may not be complete unless finality is attached to the award of the Collector under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. Finality contemplated by Section 12 of the Act would become absolute with issuance of an award under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act in case a reference was made by Collector under Sections 18/31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Passing of an award by the Court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, in the event of a reference by the Collector, would, thus, be the sine-qua-non for conclusion of compulsory acquisition proceedings vesting ownership rights of the acquired property in the State and simultaneously divesting the owner of its rights in the acquired property. A reference made by a Collector under Sections 18/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Court, thus, requires to be necessarily answered regardless of the appearance of the interested parties before it after the receipt of notice contemplated by Section 20 of the Act. Service of notice under Section 20 of the Act on the interested persons/parties, on the basis of information supplied by the Collector in this behalf, places the ball in the court of the Court, which has then to proceed to answer it, on consideration of factors mentioned in clauses First to Sixthly of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Service of notice under Section 20 of the Act on the interested persons/parties, on the basis of information supplied by the Collector in this behalf, places the ball in the court of the Court, which has then to proceed to answer it, on consideration of factors mentioned in clauses First to Sixthly of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Consideration contemplated by Section 23 of the Act may be made on the information and records supplied by the Collector in its statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, regardless of the appearance or otherwise of the interested parties before the Court on the day fixed by it to determine the objection and for answering the reference. Part-III of the Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code in itself prescribing the procedure, to be followed by the Court while dealing with a reference under Sections 18/31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Part-III of the Land Acquisition Act opens with the caption "Reference to Court and procedure thereon". There is, thus, no scope for introducing all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in this self contained Code, for, such a course may be fraught with consequences affecting adversely the intention of the Legislature in enacting Part-III and other provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Reading all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Land Acquisition Act would render the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act ineffective and meaningless. Such provisions of the Code, which work against attaching finality to the acquisition proceedings contemplated by the Land Acquisition Act, cannot, in my opinion, be said to apply to proceedings on Collectors reference before the Court. 16. Section 51 of the Land Acquisition Act and Rule 59 of the Land Acquisition Rules, contemplate the application of only those provisions of Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the Court on Collectors reference, which may be necessary for completion of the proceedings. While dealing with a Collectors reference the Court may apply the provisions of Order XLVI of the Code rather than treating the reference, as a suit or application under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, is one such provision of the Code, which may in the event of non impleading of legal representatives of a deceased party, result in abatement of the proceedings. Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, is one such provision of the Code, which may in the event of non impleading of legal representatives of a deceased party, result in abatement of the proceedings. Rigour of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure may not, thus, be conducive to the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act. In order to give true meaning and affect to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, I would hold that rigour of abatement contemplated by Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to the proceedings on a Collectors reference before the Court. 17. I am supported in my view by a Single Bench judgment of this Court in `Tej Ram and Ors. v. Collector, Land Acquisition Railways, Jammu and ors reported as 1985 KLJ 133, where His Lordship, Justice K. K. Gupta, observed as follows:- "4. The District Judge has rejected the application of the appellants mainly on the ground that it was filed late. It is to be seen and noted in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act that once a reference is made by the Collector, the Court has to make an award, no matter whether the person at whose instance the reference has been made appears or fails to appear before the Court or fails to produce evidence in support of his objections. There cannot be any dismissal or abatement of reference proceedings. In case of death of a person at whose instance the reference has been made, it becomes the duty of the Collector to supply the Court the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased-claimant to enable the Court to issue fresh notices to them. As it appears from the contents of the application filed by the appellants, they came to know about the proceedings vary late, it was the duty of the Court to substitute them for the deceased and then to proceed in accordance with law. The question of Limitation does not come under such circumstances at all." 18. This takes me to the merits of Collectors appeal against the award of the District Judge. The question of Limitation does not come under such circumstances at all." 18. This takes me to the merits of Collectors appeal against the award of the District Judge. The only issue on which the learned District Judge has awarded compensation in favour of the respondent is that from the evidence of the parties, it stood established that only two kanals eleven marlas (2K 11M) of the acquired land was Banjar Qadeem whereas rest seven kanals of land was recorded as Warhal Awal in the Revenue Records. This position had been admitted both by the Collector as also by the Patwari, the official witnesses who had appeared before the learned District Judge. 19. In view of the admission of the Collector and Patwari regarding type of land falling under acquisition, no fault may be found with the Award of learned District Judge. 20. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rupees five thousand.