JUDGMENT 1. In the present petition, the question of scope of Section 30 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act') is involved. The learned Land Acquisition Officer under his order dated 31-12-1986 (Annex.22) has made a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Court for deciding the dispute in respect of the apportionment of the compensation and in respect of the persons entitled to it. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent No.4 & 5 never made any claim nor ever appeared and the only persons who filed their claim were the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that they have absolutely on bonafide claim to the amount of compensation awarded under the Award made under Section 11 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that only if in the opinion of the Land Acquisition Officer, the dispute raised by the respondents No. 4 and 5 would have been a bona fide dispute in respect of the amount of compensation and in respect of the persons entitled to some compensation reference under Section 30 of the Act could be made to the Land Acquisition Court. But because the Land Acquisition Officer in the impugned order himself has observed that There was no prima facie case in favour of the respondents, be should not have made a reference Editorial Note:-The S. L. P. No. 10850/87 filed against this judgment has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2-11-87, under Section 30 of the Act. The contention of Mr. Rastogi, the learned counsct for the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 and supported by Shri K. S Rathore, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the other respondents is that the learned Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) had two options viz. he could either make a reference or could have directed the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to file a suit and because he had exercised his jurisdiction in making a reference under Section 30 of the Act, no case for interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. 3. he could either make a reference or could have directed the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to file a suit and because he had exercised his jurisdiction in making a reference under Section 30 of the Act, no case for interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. 3. It may be stated that the Land Acquisition Officer made an Award (Annexure 13) on September 22, 1986 under Section 11 of the Act and it was ordered that the petitioners Chhatra Bhan Singh, Prakash Chand and Kishan Sharan shall be entitled for the amount of compensation awarded under the Award. After the aforesaid Award was made an application was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 before the Land Acquisition Officer wherein a case was set up that the agricultural land acquired was the Hindu undivided property of shri Roop Narain and Narendra Kumar sons of Gaddar Singh along with Kishan Sharan and his sons Chhatra Bhan and Prakash Chand. They were the co-parcenors in the property and were entitled to a share in the amount of compensation awarded. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the petitioners and the application was contested. The learned Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O., Deeg) under his order dated 31st December, 1986 (Annex 22) has made a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Court. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of (1) Dr. G H. Grant Versus The State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 231) has dealt with the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It has been held by their Lordships that the said provisions are distinct, a person who is shown in the award which relates to the apportionment of compensation and who is present either personally or through a representative or on whom a notice is served under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 if he does not accept the award must apply to the Collector within the time prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector, if he is not served with notice of the filing, may raise a dispute relating to apportionment or to the persons to whom it is payable, and apply to the Court for a reference under Section 30, for the determination of his right to compensation which may have existed before the award, or which may have devolved upon him since the award. Admittedly, so far as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they were neither personally present nor were represented by anybody during the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer nor any of them was served under Sub- Section (2) of Section 12 by them. As stated earlier, after the Award was made, an application was filed on their behalf claiming interest in the compensation awarded. 'Person interested' is defined in Section 3(b) of the Act and that expression includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of the land under the Act. A person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. Therefore, the expression 'person interested' includes all persons claiming a right of compensation The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 claim interest in the amount of compensation on the ground that the property was co-parcenory property and they were the co-parcenors with the petitioners. It may be stated that there is no dispute that pedigree table of the parties is as under: According to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 there was a joint family business of M/s. Gaddar Singh Kishan Sharan Singh. The property in dispute i.e. the acquired land which has been acquired and in respect of which compensation has been granted, is said to have been purchased by Kishan Shiran in his own name and in the name of his two sons Chhatrabban and Prakash Chand who were admittedly minors when the property was purchased. A partition had taken place first in the year 1963 and then in 1978. A partition had taken place first in the year 1963 and then in 1978. The learned Land Acquisition Officer has clearly observed in his impugned order that though there is no prima facie case but the dispute is such which can only be decided in a reference by the Court under the Act and he has thought it better to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. 5. Section 30 of the Act provides that when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section II, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof is payable. the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the court. It is, therefore, clear that it is upon the Collector to make a reference of the dispute as aforesaid to the court for decision. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Grant (supra) has laid down that the Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title to compensation, that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 or in a separate suit. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 contended that under Section 30 of the Act the learned Land Acquisition Officer is empowered to decide the dispute and in this respect he made a reference to the case of (2) Afzal Bee v. The Special Deputy Collector and others (AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 463) , and moreso to the observation of Chinnappa Reddy J. as his lordships has held as under : "If Sections 11, 29, 30 and 18 are read together, it becomes obvious that the Land Acquisition Officer has the jurisdiction to apportion the compensation among the persons interested while making an award. That necessarily means that he has the jurisdiction to decide questions of title if such questions are arised before him. But instead of deciding the question of title himself, he has the option to refer such questions to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. Naturally, where co-replicated questions of title arise, the Land Acquisition Officer will be expected to refer the questions for the decision of the Court under Section 30. But where the questions are raised simple, the Land Acquisition Officer may himself deal with them and incorporate his decision in the award. Naturally, where co-replicated questions of title arise, the Land Acquisition Officer will be expected to refer the questions for the decision of the Court under Section 30. But where the questions are raised simple, the Land Acquisition Officer may himself deal with them and incorporate his decision in the award. If he does so and if a party is aggrieved by the apportionment of compensation, such party may seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act." 6. We are of the opinion that in the aforesaid case, it has been clearly laid down that it is only before the award is made and while making the award under Section 11 the apportionment of the same or any part of it can be decided by the Collector. Once the Collector makes the award under Section 11 of the Act then the question of apportionment of compensation or to whom the same or any part of it is payable can be decided either by making a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Court. We have already said in what circumstances reference under Section 18 and 30 of the Act can be made to the Court and so far as the present case is concerned, this is one under Section 30 of the Act. Mr. Tibrewal, in support of his contention that dispute within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act means that there should be a bona-fide dispute, has made a reference to (3) S. Duraiswami Nladar v. Addl. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Railways, Nagarcoil and others (AIR 1978 Madras 313 (4) Phongesh Misau Versus Collector of Land Acquisition and others (AIR 1977 Gauhati 47) and (5) Sundhansu Kumar Ghose and another v. Land Acquisition Officer, Patna and others (AIR Patna 150) (year not typed). 7. We have already said earlier that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the title of the party in respect of the apportionment of the compensation as well as to who is entitled to the whole or any part of the compensation. We have also referred to the definition of the expression 'person interested' in Subsection ( ) (b) of the Act. The respondents Nos. We have also referred to the definition of the expression 'person interested' in Subsection ( ) (b) of the Act. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 claimed a share in the compensation on the ground that the property is undivided Hindu family property and they are the co-parcenors. These matters can only be decided by Land Acquisitiol Court once the matter has been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer. We have already said that two options were open for the Land Acquisition Officer. he could either make a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Court or can relegate the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to a civil suit. But for the reasons, stated above, he has chosen the first course. 8. We are of the opinion that even as per the claim of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 they can claim half share in the amount of compensation. We find no justification to with hold the payment of 50% of the amount of compensation to the petitioners. 9. While dismissing this writ petition we hereby order that so far as the 50% compensation is concerned, it shall remain, be said to the petitioners and balance of 50% shall remain in the court to whom the reference has been made and that amount shall be governed under the orders which that court may pass.Petition Dismissed. *******