JUDGMENT : The petitioners are the daughters of one Mariyumma, who owned properties in Re.Sy.No.194/2 & 194/105 of Pinarayi Amsom. The properties were assigned to the petitioners by the said Mariyumma. There are residential buildings situated in the properties of both the petitioners and they have been numbered as 18/325 and 18/394 by the Pinarayi Grama Panchayat. On the southern side of the properties, there is a road and a bridge. The road on the southern side was at the same level of the courtyard of the properties. According to the petitioners, the respondents propose to construct a new bridge and an approach road by retaining the old bridge in the same position with a height of 5 meters above the existing road. The writ petition was filed alleging that the property on one side of the road alone is being acquired for the purpose of development, due to political influence. It is stated that if the proposed construction is started, the petitioners will have no front-yard and access to their houses and their residential building will be under the level of the bridge, which is proposed to be constructed. Ext.P4 is the copy of the notification published in the Gazette on 01.02.2022 proposing to acquire the land. The petitioners submitted representations. On 15.07.2020, the 3rd respondent issued a reply to the 1st petitioner justifying the present alignment and stating that as per the alignment, the residential buildings of the petitioners will not be required to be acquired. It is further stated that even after acquisition, there will be a distance of 1.5 meters from the verandah of the house to the acquired portion. The 2nd respondent on 09.11.2020 issued a letter to the petitioners stating that the proposed alignment is the best alignment possible and informing them that access will be provided to the residential building of the petitioners from the western side of the building since it will not be possible to provide access through the present gate. Ext.P6 is the letter. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.7598/2022. It was contended that the acquisition would injuriously affect the residential buildings. The petitioners applied under Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”). Exts.P7 and P8 are the applications submitted by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent. It was contended that the acquisition would injuriously affect the residential buildings. The petitioners applied under Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”). Exts.P7 and P8 are the applications submitted by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent. On 03.08.2022, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 rejecting the request of the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by Ext.P9. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the design of the bridge is such that the approach road level will be at the same level as the petitioners' property at the location, in between their properties, which are adjacent to each other and they will get direct vehicular access. It is also stated that the petitioners will get courtyards with a minimum width of 1.5 meters even after the construction of the approach road. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit. 3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P9 order is not in accordance with the statutory provision and intent. The reason stated in Ext.P9 for rejecting the requests are (i) the request that compensation should be as demanded by the petitioners for acquiring land invoking Section 94. (ii) The petitioners' buildings are not involved in the acquisition and hence there is no threat to the buildings. (iii) The construction of the bridge will not affect the freedom of movement of the petitioners. 4. The counsel for the petitioners contends that such a decision cannot be taken by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent ought to have referred the question of whether any land proposed to be taken, does or does not form part of acquisition within the meaning of the Section, to the authority concerned. 5. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Anr. V. Kundan Singh & Anr. [ AIR 1964 SC 350 ] and Deep Chand & Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. [ AIR 1994 SC 1901 ]. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Saramma Itticheriya V. State of Kerala [ 2008 (1) KLT 6 (F.B.)]. 6. V. Kundan Singh & Anr. [ AIR 1964 SC 350 ] and Deep Chand & Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. [ AIR 1994 SC 1901 ]. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Saramma Itticheriya V. State of Kerala [ 2008 (1) KLT 6 (F.B.)]. 6. The Government Pleader on the other hand contends that no portion of the building is being acquired and hence the question itself does not arise requiring a reference for determination. Attention is drawn to the definition of the word “land”. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. V. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. [ AIR 2017 SC 4490 ]. 7. In Kundan Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which is similarly worded as Section 94(1) of the “2013 Act”. The Supreme Court held that if any objection is made by the owner, the Collector may decide to accept the objection and accede to the desire of the owner to acquire the whole of the house, in which case further proceedings will be taken on the basis that the whole of the building is being acquired. But in cases where the Collector does not accept the claim of the owner that what is being acquired is the part of the house, the matter in dispute must be judicially determined and that is provided for by the second proviso to section 49(1). The Court held that the Collector is under an obligation to refer the matter to the Court and he shall not take possession of the land under acquisition until the question is determined by the Court. 8. In the 2013 Act, there is no reference required to the Court. Instead, the word used is “the authority concerned.” However, the fact remains that the District Collector is obliged to refer the matter rather than to decide himself. In Saramma Itticheriya (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held that if the desire exercised by the owner to acquire the entire building is not acceptable, the only option for the Land Acquisition Officer is to withdraw from the acquisition. In Saramma Itticheriya (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held that if the desire exercised by the owner to acquire the entire building is not acceptable, the only option for the Land Acquisition Officer is to withdraw from the acquisition. It is also held that if there is any dispute regarding the issue specifically mentioned in the second proviso, the matter should be referred to the Court and the Collector has no power to adjudicate the question under Section 49(1). In Deep Chand (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after extracting Section 49 held that a reading of the above section shows that a right is being given to the owner of the land to object to the putting of the Act into force when only a part of any house, manufactory or other building is being sought to be acquired. The Court observed that what has been given is a right to object only to the acquisition of part of the building without acquiring the whole of the house, manufactory, or building, and in determining the question whether the land proposed to be taken was reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory or building left out of the acquisition, all that the Court has to examine is whether the objection is sustainable. It is further held that it is one of determination of the convenient use and enjoyment of the unacquired portion of the land or a building, manufactory, or the other house and if the answer is in favour of the land owner, the only choice left to the Government is either to acquire the whole property or to drop the proposed acquisition. It is further held that the decision of the Civil Court only hinges upon the convenient or unimpaired use and enjoyment of the house, manufactory, or building with the residue of the land left over after acquiring the other property. 9. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the question to be looked into by the authority on reference should be as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-said decisions and the order issued by the District Collector is not warranted and is without any authority. 10. 9. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the question to be looked into by the authority on reference should be as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-said decisions and the order issued by the District Collector is not warranted and is without any authority. 10. In Reliance Industries case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the definition of the word “land” in Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act, which says that “land” includes benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The Court held that a reading of Section 49 makes it clear that there can be the acquisition of part of a house or building and as per the proviso, if any question arises whether any land proposed to be taken under the Act does or does not form part of a house, manufactory or building, the Collector shall refer the determination of such question to the Court. The Court further held that the Court to which the matter is referred must take into consideration the question whether the land proposed to be taken is reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory, or building. However, on facts the question involved before the Supreme Court was as to whether a portion of the building alone can be acquired without acquiring the land. 11. Having considered the arguments advanced by either side and the decisions referred above, it is obvious that the 2nd respondent does not have any other option but to refer the question for consideration by the concerned authority. Section 94 as earlier said is almost similarly worded as Section 49 of the old Act and is extracted for reference. “S.94(1). 11. Having considered the arguments advanced by either side and the decisions referred above, it is obvious that the 2nd respondent does not have any other option but to refer the question for consideration by the concerned authority. Section 94 as earlier said is almost similarly worded as Section 49 of the old Act and is extracted for reference. “S.94(1). The provisions of this Act shall not be put in force for the purpose of acquiring the part only of any house, manufactory or other building, if the owner desires that the whole of such house, manufactory or building shall be so acquired : provided that if any question shall arise as to whether any land proposed to be taken under this Act does or does not form part of a house, manufactory or building within the meaning of this Section, the Collector shall refer the determination of such question to the authority concerned and shall not be taken possession of such land until after the question has been determined. (2) In deciding on such a reference made under the Proviso to Sub Section 1, the authority concerned shall have regard to the question whether the land proposed to be taken, is reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory or building.” 12. Section 94 contemplates the acquisition of a part of the building, as well as the acquisition of land which is reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory, or building and what is required to be referred by the Collector is a question that shall arise as to whether any land proposed to be taken under this Act does or does not form part of a house, manufactory or building within the meaning of the Section. In the case on hand, what is proposed to be taken is the land. Going by the definition of land, it includes benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, which is wide enough to include a building or a portion thereof. Sub-section (2) puts the issue in perspective when it says that the authority concerned must look into the question whether the land proposed to be taken is reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory, or building. Sub-section (2) puts the issue in perspective when it says that the authority concerned must look into the question whether the land proposed to be taken is reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory, or building. As such, Ext.P9 is not only without jurisdiction but also has been issued without considering the aspects which are required to be decided on a reference under the proviso to Section 94(1). In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to refer the issue raised in Exts.P7 & P8 to the concerned authority for decision and as required by Section 94. Taking physical possession of the property shall be deferred till a decision is taken by the concerned authority.