This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the Additional Collector, Bhilwara dated 10-4-1964 rejecting the applicants appeal against the order of the Tehsildar, Bhilwara dated 30-5-1963. Briefly the facts of the case are that the parties were the co-sharers of certain agricultural lands which was acquired by the Government under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 and thus vested in the Government. The amount of compensation to be paid to the co-sharers was determined and before it was paid Shri Abdul Majid expired, and the Tehsildar required that before any compensation could be paid to the heirs of the deceased they be called upon to file the succession certificate. It is against the order of the Tehsildar that an appeal was preferred to the Collector, Bhilwara who rejected the appeal as time barred. It is against these orders that the present revision petition has been preferred. It was the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that this case pertains to apportionment of compensation of the land acquired by the Government and the rights and liabilities of the party for payment of compensation was to be determined in accordance with the shares in the record of rights and as such the case came within the preview of the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and this revision petition was filed under section 84 of the aforesaid Act. This argument of the counsel for the appellant on the face of it is untenable and ill conceived. Once the Government has acquired the land it vested in it and there are no rights and liabilities of the parties, left over in that piece of land. The only dispute in this case is with regard to the apportionment of compensation to various co-sharers whose land was acquired by the State. The proceedings for apportionment of the compensation therefore has to be governed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act part IV, Section 30 which in case of dispute between the various persons interested for the payment of compensation has to be referred to the Civil Court. The provisions to Section 30 of the above Act runs as follows:— "Section 30—Dispute as to apportionment. The provisions to Section 30 of the above Act runs as follows:— "Section 30—Dispute as to apportionment. When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable the Collector may refer such disputes to the decision of the Court." It is not understood how the Tehsildar exercised jurisdiction and determined the rights and liabilities of the parties with regard to compensation. It was the duty of the Collector to have decided all these matters himself in exercise of his power under the Land Acquisition Act. In any case this present revision petition of the petitioner is clearly not maintainable and he has to seek his remedy if any in the appropriate court in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. This revision petition is accordingly rejected.