JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, dated the 28th of June 1899. The suit out of which the appeal arises is a land acquisition suit. Certain land has been taken up for the extension of the Bediaparah Road. The case was referred by the Collector to the Judge under the provisions of sec. 18 and the Judge first settled the valuation of the property and should then have proceeded to deal with the apportionment. It is unnecessary for us to detail the further proceedings of the Judge. It is sufficient to say that on the 28th of June he recorded the following judgment:--"This case is dismissed and the parties referred to the Civil Court." This order has, no doubt, the merit of brevity. But it appears to us to have no other merit. In the first place, it does not record the learned Judge's reasons for passing it; and, in the next place, it seems to us to be without jurisdiction whatever, The stage at which the case had arrived when the Judge dismissed it was one to which the provisions of sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act are applicable. What the Judge had to do was to apportion the amount of compensation awarded for the land as he thought fit. He had no authority, so far as we can see, to refer the matter to a Civil Court; and we must accordingly set aside his order and remand the case to him to be disposed of in accordance with law. 2. The Appellant is entitled to his costs. It may be mentioned that the Respondent No. 4 is dead. He is said to have died within six months. The Appellant, however, has not brought in the heirs of the deceased Respondent. He says that the Respondent No. 4 was not interested in the apportionment and therefore he has intentionally omitted to bring in his heirs.