JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The appeal is by the Wakf Board rejecting a claim for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’). I heard the counsel appearing for the Wakf Board read the award of the Collector which nowhere spells out the Wakf Board to be the owner of the property. The award merely refers to the property as gair mumkin and an assessment with a valuation of Rs.6,000/- per acre. The reference under Section 18 of the Act has been sought by the Wakf Board contending that it was the owner and curiously the reference Court has framed an issue of the title to the property although there had been no reference made under Section 30 of the Act. A reference Court that entertains a claim for enhancement had not the competency to even decide on title. If the Panchayat which had staked a claim for amount to determine by the Collector was prepared to concede to the correctness of the assessment of the value of the property then, without inviting the Collector to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act, the reference Court would not be competent even to adjudicate on title. I also find that even in the reference application, the Wakf Board has complained that it had no notice of acquisition. The acquisition proceedings could not have been taken without notice to the owner, in the manner required under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Curiously, the Section 4(1) notification does not set out even the ownership of the property. 2. I am loathe to traverse beyond what the case requires. I would rest the case on a fundamental issue that the Wakf Board could not have sought for an adjudication rendered in its favour for its entitlement without seeking for a reference under Section 30 of the Act. If the Wakf Board itself was not prepared to join issue on title by a proper reference made, then, the matter ought to have concluded with its finding that the Panchayat who claimed as an owner was prepared to accept the quantum of compensation assessed and that settled the issue against the applicant Wakf Board as well. 3. If the Wakf Board itself was not prepared to join issue on title by a proper reference made, then, the matter ought to have concluded with its finding that the Panchayat who claimed as an owner was prepared to accept the quantum of compensation assessed and that settled the issue against the applicant Wakf Board as well. 3. The award of the reference Court would, therefore, require to be confirmed, although for a different reason as enumerated above than the reason given in the impugned award. The bottom line is that the Wakf Board cannot secure any relief in its reference sought in writing under Section 18 of the Act. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.