JUDGMENT 1. 1. Mainly, two prayers have been made in this writ petition viz, (i) a writ of mandamus or prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof be issued directing the Additional District Judge, Deeg to dispose of the application of the petitioner moved before him for being impleaded as a party to the Reference made under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act'): (ii) a direction may be issued to the Additional District Judge, Deeg, that the petitioner is entitled to recover the compensation for the land compulsorily acquired by the State Government and till the application is disposed of the amount of compensation lying with the court should not be paid to any body. 2. There is no dispute that so far as the land in dispute is concerned, an Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under which the land was acquired. No application under section 18 of the Act was made for making a reference to the court before Land Acquisition Officer but, an application under Section 30 of the Act was made to the Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to make a reference to decide the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation in between those who are allotters or entitled to it, & the application was contested by others but not by the petitioner. The Land Acquisition Officer, ultimately made a Reference under Section 30 of the Act on December 31, 1986. 3. It may be stated that the award-holders had moved this Court in writ jurisdiction against the order of Reference and, this Court on July 6, 1987 in Chhatrabhan Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 300/1987 , made an order that the persons at whose instance, the reference has been made, can only claim fifty percent of the amount of compensation, and so far as the remaining part of the Award is concerned, the amount of compensation may be paid to Chhatarbhan Singh and others (petitioners in that writ petition). It appears that the aforesaid order of this Court perhaps gave some cause of action and they have filed this writ petition. 4. It appears that the aforesaid order of this Court perhaps gave some cause of action and they have filed this writ petition. 4. According to the learned counsel for the present petitioner, he was a person in cultivation and possession of the land in dispute; though, what was the status of the petitioner whether, a sub-tenant or transferee, or in what capacity is not known. His contention is that because, he is a person who being in cultivators possession had spent a huge amount in developing the land in dispute making it fit for cultivation, and in other development activities, such as levelling etc., so he is a person interested and entitled to receive compensation on account of acquisition of the land in dispute. According to the petitioner, he did not receive any notice what so ever of the acquisition proceedings, nor had any knowledge about it, he moved application for being impleaded as a party to the Reference, which is yet pending before the Additional District Judge, Deeg which fact had not been brought by the parties to the notice of this Court while deciding the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 300/1987 on July 6, 1987. According to the petitioner, his application should have been disposed of and unless and until his application is decided by the Additional District Judge, Deeg, no order could be passed with regard to the payment of compensation to anybody, and if the amount of 50% compensation is allowed to be paid to Chhatar Bhan Singh and others (petitioners in writ petition No. 300/1987), the rights of the petitioner are likely to be affected and jeopardised. 5. We would not like to say anything so far as the rights of the petitioner are concerned. We refrain to say, whether the petitioner having remained absent before the Revenue Court and in the absence of any registered document having been produced, can be said to be a interested or not. The application under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('CPC') is pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Deeg and it is for that Court to decide whether the application should be allowed or not. The application under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('CPC') is pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Deeg and it is for that Court to decide whether the application should be allowed or not. If we say anything that way or either way, it may prejudice the case of either of the parties so far as the question as to whether the petitioner is interested or whether he should be allowed to be impleaded as a party to the proceeding under Section 30 of the Act, under Order 1, R, 10, CPC. But there cannot be any doubt that the application should be disposed of in any way what so ever, in accordance with law. Therefore, the Additional District Jndge Deeg must decide that application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. It was given out by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Kishansharan, who has entered into a caveat that so far as the application of the petitioner is concerned, it has been contested and a reply to it has been filed before that Court, where any vesting of right or the fact that the petitioner is interested and entitled to in the apportionment of the compensation, have been denied. It was also given out that that Court has fixed some date for decision of the application of the petitioner. 6. We may state that this Court cannot issue any direction that the Petitioner is a person interested and entitled to obtain compensation for the land acquired by the State Government. It is a matter which will be decided in the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act if the application of the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code is decided in his favour or not and in either way if the petitioner chooses to go to Court of law. For the present one, we are not even inclined to order that the amount of compensation should not be paid to Chhatarbhansingh and others in terms of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 300/1987 decided on July 6, 1987. 7. For the present one, we are not even inclined to order that the amount of compensation should not be paid to Chhatarbhansingh and others in terms of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 300/1987 decided on July 6, 1987. 7. Consequently, we partly allow this writ petition and only issue direction to the Additional District Judge, Deeg, to dispose of the application (Annexure 1) of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code moved before him as soon as possible but in no case beyond one month. Rest of the prayers made in the writ petition are declined. Costs are made easy.Petition partly allowed. *******