JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Government of Kerala and the District Collector, Ernakulam, challenging the judgment dated 09.10.2018 of the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 18200 of 2018, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the sale deeds executed by and between the writ petitioners and the second appellant, i.e. the District Collector Ernakulam, shall be reckoned as awards in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act 2013’ for short). Thereupon, it was directed that Exts.P12 and P13 applications submitted by the writ petitioners seeking reference shall be taken up by the appellants and treating the sale deeds as awards, appropriate orders shall be passed thereon in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The writ petitioners, who are respondents in the appeal are brothers, are owners of certain extent of properties by virtue of Exhibits P1 and P2 settlement deeds situated in Survey Nos. 168/1 and 168/5 of Elamkulam Village. According to the writ petitioners, it was acquired for the development of Pullepady-Thammanam road, a link road connecting the Ernakulam town with the outskirts of the Kochi city. According to the writ petitioners, the land in question formed part of a large extent of property secured by the petitioners as per Exts.P1 and P2 settlement deeds and the properties were lying as a compact plot. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that in the property, a building was situated and property tax was also being paid to the Corporation of Kochi. It is also pointed out that the land was a dry land and therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the District Collector to have the land categorised as original dry land having frontage of Pullepady-Thammanam road. Contentions are raised in respect of the determination of the land value. But, we are not going into those questions, since those are all matters to be considered by competent authority/court in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. 3. Contentions are raised in respect of the determination of the land value. But, we are not going into those questions, since those are all matters to be considered by competent authority/court in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. 3. Here, the seminal question arising for consideration is whether the finding of the learned single Judge that the agreement executed by and between the writ petitioners and the District Collector could be treated as an award in terms of Act, 2013? Exts.P10 and P11 are undisputedly the agreements unilaterally executed by the petitioners in favour of the District Collector, Ernakulam. In Ext.P10 agreement executed by and between the first petitioner and the District Collector, the first petitioner is agreeing to surrender the lands in terms of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 22.03.1984 for a total consideration of Rs.45,56,102/- and it is borne from the agreement that 50% of the amount was paid and the balance amount was to be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions contained under the agreement dated 22.09.2016. The relevant and significant aspect of the said agreement is that, it is essentially a condition of agreement that while re-determining the value of the land surrendered by the first petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder, if any further compensation or package is offered by the Government over and above the compensation already fixed, the petitioner shall have the eligibility for receiving the same. Similarly, in Ext.P11 agreement executed by the second petitioner in favour of the District Collector, Ernakulam also, the said essential condition is included. It was based on the said recital in the agreements that the learned single Judge directed the District Collector to consider Exts.P12 and P13 applications seeking reference and pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 2013. 4. The paramount contention advanced in the writ appeal is that the learned single Judge was not right in directing the District Collector to consider the reference application, since Exts.P10 and P11 agreements are unilateral agreements executed by the writ petitioners in favour of the District Collector Ernakulam which would has no binding force, insofar as the terms and conditions of the agreement is concerned. It is also pointed out that the compensation was fixed as per the basic evaluation report, which is fixed in accordance with the Act, 2003. It is also pointed out that the compensation was fixed as per the basic evaluation report, which is fixed in accordance with the Act, 2003. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced is that there is no entitlement for enhanced compensation and therefore, there is no requirement to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. It is also submitted that as per Annexure A1 revised basic evaluation report, 10% solatium and 12% additional land value was granted to the writ petitioners and therefore, they are not entitled to make any claims in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013. 5. The appellants are also relying upon Annexure A3 judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 22779 of 2016 dated 03.08.2016, filed by the 1st respondent herein, whereby the question of deduction of tax at source under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894/Act, 2013 was considered and it was held that if the purchase was made on the basis of the agreements executed by and between the parties, there is no acquisition under the aforesaid Acts and no tax can be deducted at source. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petitioners are admitting the fact that the transaction by and between the parties concluded on the basis of the agreements in question. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that it was on the basis of Exts.P10 and P11 agreements, the lands were purchased by the District Collector and therefore, the District Collector is not at liberty to turn around and contend that the unilateral agreements executed by the writ petitioners in favour of the District Collector will not bind the District Collector. It is also pointed out that it was in terms of Exts.P10 and P11 agreements that the land value was determined, amounts were paid and the properties were surrendered and therefore, having accepted the terms and conditions of the agreements substantially, attitude of the District Collector that the specific term contained in the agreements in respect of the re-determination of the compensation in terms of any developments that are occurring consequent to the Act, 2013 is not a sustainable contention under law. 7. We have heard Sri. 7. We have heard Sri. Tek Chand, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Sri. Abey J. Augustine appeared for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 8. The question raised by the appellants revolves around Sections 26 to 30 and 64 and 66 of the Act, 2013. Section 26 of the Act deals with determination of market value of land by the Collector, wherein the District Collector has to take into account the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sale as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of land for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher. The proviso states that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11 of the Act, 2013 i.e. the publication of preliminary notification by the appropriate Government. 9. Apart from the above, various provisions are made in respect of the determination of the land value. Section 27 deals with determination of amount of compensation and it is specified that the Collector, having determined the market value of the land to be acquired, shall calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner, whose land has been acquired, by including all assets attached to the land. Section 28 deals with the parameters to be considered by the Collector in determining the land value. Section 29 delineates the manner in which the value of things attached to land or building to be determined and Section 30 deals with award of solatium. Section 30 is relevant to the context, which reads thus: “30. Award of solatium (1) The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a ‘Solatium’ amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired. (2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule. (3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment study under sub-section (2) of section 4, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.” 10. On an analysis of the above provisions and correlating the same with Exts.P10 and P11 agreements, which are the subject matter of controversy in the writ appeal, it is clear that the determination was done in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013 and it also takes in acquisition of land on the basis of agreement. Thus, the condition contained under the agreements granting liberty to the writ petitioners to make claims on account of the act 2013 cannot be said to be a totally strange or alien condition. To put it otherwise, the said condition makes absolute sense, since it really intended to protect the interest of the land owners which has a clear correlation with the objective of Act, 2013 for payment of adequate and fair compensation, apart from other provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement, for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that, affected persons become partners in the developmental activities. Having acted upon the unilateral agreement executed by the writ petitioners in favour of the District Collector and paid the compensation in terms of that agreement and secured possession of the land accordingly, the District Collector cannot turn around and attack the agreement stating that the District Collector is not bound by unilateral agreement executed by the writ petitioners. Having acted upon the unilateral agreement executed by the writ petitioners in favour of the District Collector and paid the compensation in terms of that agreement and secured possession of the land accordingly, the District Collector cannot turn around and attack the agreement stating that the District Collector is not bound by unilateral agreement executed by the writ petitioners. Admittedly, it is an essential condition of the agreement that while re-determining the value of the land surrendered by the writ petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioners are entitled to get further compensation or package offered by the Government over and above the compensation already fixed and further that they would be eligible to receive the same. If there was no intention to act upon that part of the agreement, the District Collector should not have accepted the agreement in toto. Having not done so, the District Collector is not at liberty to resile from the said essential term of the agreements. Above all, the requisitioning authority is the Corporation of Kochi and at the end of the day further compensation if any to be paid, the financial sufferer is the said Corporation and accordingly, looking from that angle, the appellants cannot be strictly termed as aggrieved persons. 11. Now, we come to Section 64 of the Act, 2013 dealing with ‘reference to authority’ which specifies that 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 Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Other requirements are provided under Section 64 in respect of the applications and the manner in which reference has to be made by the District Collector. 12. Here is a case where the wit petitioners have submitted Exts.P12 and P13 applications dated 22.02.2018 before the District Collector seeking reference to the authority constituted under the Act, for re-determination of the compensation amount in terms of Act, 2013 and in terms of the agreements discussed above. 12. Here is a case where the wit petitioners have submitted Exts.P12 and P13 applications dated 22.02.2018 before the District Collector seeking reference to the authority constituted under the Act, for re-determination of the compensation amount in terms of Act, 2013 and in terms of the agreements discussed above. The relevant and important aspect to be taken note of in this context is that there is no power vested with the District Collector for re-determination of the compensation and other aspects in terms of Act, 2013. Re-determination, according to us, can only be done by the authority constituted under the Act for considering the referred applications in terms of Act, 2013. Correlating all these aspects, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned single Judge was right in directing the District Collector to consider Exts.P12 and P13 reference applications in terms of Act, 2013 and pass appropriate orders. 13. Yet another contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Tek Chand, is that in terms of Annexure A3 judgment produced along with the writ appeal, the writ petitioners are not at liberty to make any claims in terms of the determination of compensation as per Act, 2013, since no income tax was deducted consequent to the purchase of the land by the Government in terms of the agreement offered by the writ petitioners. However, in our considered opinion, the said issue is guided by Section 96 of the Act, 2013 dealing with exemption from income tax, stamp duty and fees, which stipulates that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under Section 46 and no person claiming under any such award or agreement shall be liable to pay any fee for a copy of the same. Therefore, it is unequivocal that by virtue of the specific stipulation contained under section 96 of Act 2013, no income tax can be levied on any award or agreement. Which means, the appellants are not entitled to get any advantage on the basis of Annexure A3 judgment. Said so, we do not find any force in the said contention also. 14. Which means, the appellants are not entitled to get any advantage on the basis of Annexure A3 judgment. Said so, we do not find any force in the said contention also. 14. Moreover, the issue of purchase of land in terms of the agreement was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kochi Metro Rail Limited vs. Shanavas and Others in W.A. No. 2158 of 2017 and has rendered a judgment dated 13.12.2017, whereby it was held as follows at paragraphs 16 to 21: “19. Sections 26 to 30 of the new Act deal with the procedure for determining the compensation. Here, after negotiations, the parties have consensually fixed the sale consideration and entered into a transaction of sale. The sale is yet to be completed, though. On the strength of agreement, the Company paid substantial consideration and possessed the lands. The project has been completed, too. 20. Under these circumstances, it serves the interest of both the parties if we reckon the sale consideration under the agreements of sale as the amount awarded in the first instance by the primary authority or the Land Acquisition Authority. Therefore, the sale consideration must be the deemed award for the landowners to seek enhancement under section 64 of the new Act. 21. That accepted, it is open for the landowners to apply to the District Collector, who, in turn, will act on the landowners’ representations: He will refer the matters to the Competent Authority under section 64 of the new Act within six weeks from today.” 15. Deducing the facts and circumstances and the law applicable to the case at hand, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant have not made out any case, justifying interference in the judgment of the learned single Judge exercising the power under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, there being no error in exercising the discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or other legal infirmities. 16. Resultantly, writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.