JUDGMENT R. A. Sharma, J 1. An area .258 Acre of plot No. 344/1 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Special Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 22-9-1986 awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,287 95 in favour of Sri Rajendra Kumar Jain, respondent No. 2, who alone was held to be entitled for the compensation. Against this award a joint reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act was made to the Civil Court' by the Collector, Varanasi, 2. Learned 1st Additional District Judge, Varanasi framed the following issues : "1. Whether the claimant or opposite parties no. 2 to 5 are entitled to compensation for land of plot no. 344/1 0.258 acre ? 2. What was the market value of the property acquired on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act ? To what further amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled ? 3. To what amount and relief, if any, is the claimant entitled ? 3. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, learned Additional District Judge held that Rajendra Kumar Jain alone is entitled for compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not adequate and the same was enhanced from Rs 4,32,287.95 to Rs. 15,71,491.71 p and the claim of the appellants was rejected. 4 Against the aforesaid award appellants have filed First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1-A of the CPC. The Stamp Reporter of this Court has reported that First Appeal From Order is incompetent and it should be filed as regular First Appeal and ad valorem court-fee of Rs. 2500.50 is payable After the learned counsel for the appellants has amended the valuation of the appeal, it was reported that fee of Rs. 19,457.50 is payable. Learned counsel for the appellants has contested this report and has argued before us that First Appeal From Order, against the award of the Civil Court, by the appellants is maintainable before this Court and it is not necessary to file a regular appeal and pay ad valorem court fee, because it was a reference under Sections 30 and 18 of the Act. 4. 4. Any interested person .who has not accepted the award may under Section 18 require the Collector to refer the matter to civil court for determination of the question regarding the measurement of land, amount of compensation, person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Section 18 (1) of the Act is quoted below : 18. Reference to Court-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested." In a reference under Section 18 all questions relating to the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable and the apportionment of the compensation are liable to be decided by the Civil court. However, if the award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act has been settled and has become final and if any dispute arises as to the apportionment or about the person to whom the amount is payable, a reference can be made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Act. If the award under Section II of the Act has not become final, the reference is required to be made Under Sections 18/19 of the Act on all relevant questions including the quantum of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation. Supreme Court in Grant v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 has held that, "There are two provisions, Sections 18 (1) and 30, which invest the Collector with power to refer to the Court a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. By sub-section (1) of Section 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to apportionment, or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by sub-section (2) of that section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. By sub-section (1) of Section 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to apportionment, or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by sub-section (2) of that section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. Section 30 authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after compensation is settled under Section 11 any dispute arising as to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable." In the instant case the award has not become final and objections were filed against it by the parties, both on the questions of quantum of compensation and the persons to whom it is payable and on the basis of these objections a joint reference was made under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act. As the award under Section 11 of the Act has not become final, reference was required to be made by the Collector only under Sections 18/19 of the Act for determining the quantum of compensation and persons to whom it is payable. Reference under Section 30 was actually uncalled for. The dispute was decided by the impugned award and against it a regular appeal is maintainable under Section 54 of the Act and the Stamp Reporter was fully justified in reporting that First Appeal From Order is not maintainable, 5. After the decision of the Privy Council in T. B. Ramachandra Rao v. A, N. S. Ramachandra Rao, AIR 1922 PC 80 even in cases where the reference is only under Section 30 of the Act, order of the civil court determining the right of persons to receive the amount of compensation has been held by various High Courts to be a decree, and not an award, against which a regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC lies. Reference may be made to AIR 1933 Bombay 198, AIR 1960 Mysore 169, AIR 1970 Gujarat 37, AIR 1975 Madras 177, and AIR 1989 HP 65 . We respectfully agree with the law laid down by these cases. 6. Reference may be made to AIR 1933 Bombay 198, AIR 1960 Mysore 169, AIR 1970 Gujarat 37, AIR 1975 Madras 177, and AIR 1989 HP 65 . We respectfully agree with the law laid down by these cases. 6. Even if it is assumed that a joint reference under Section 30 and 18 of the Act was rightly made by the Collector, determination of various questions by the civil court in such a reference will be an award and appeal against such an award would lie under Section 54 of the Act. In Brahmes- wara Devaru v. Rudriah, AlR 1956 Mysore 28 DB it was held that when there is a composite reference under Sections 18 and 3u to the civil court and both the questions about quantum of compensation and the persons to whom it is payable are decided by one order, such an order is an award within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act and as such only appeal would lie. Reliance by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decisions in Smt Leelawati v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1983 AWC 746, Loomchand Sait v The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, AIR 1975 Madras 177 and Babulal Mehtar v. Fakira Mehtar, AIR 1985 Patna 249 is misplaced. In Smt. Leelawati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) a Division Bench of this Court had held that in an appeal under the Act the appellant has to pay ad valorem court fee on the difference of amount of compensation claimed by him and the amount actually paid. In Loomchand Sait's case (supra) Madras High Court has held that the judgment in a reference under Section 30 of the Act is not an award and as such is not appealable under Section 54 but appeal would lie under Section 96 of the CPC. In Babulal Mehtar's case, Patna High Court had held that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC would apply to proceedings before the Civil Court in a reference made under Section 18 or 30 of the Act and the civil court will have jurisdiction to add a person as a party to the proceedings pending before it. None of these cases helps the learned counsel for the appellants. None of these cases helps the learned counsel for the appellants. In the end, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Section 53 of the Act, which lays down that provisions of the CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. Right of appeal is a right which is created by statute and such a right cannot be claimed unless it is expressly conferred by law. Section 54 of the Act confers a right of appeal against an award and as mentioned above against a judgment in a reference under Section 30 of the Act, regular appeal under Section 96 of the CPC would lie. There is no other provision which confers a right on the appellants to file any other kind of appeal against the impugned award. Order 43 Rule 1-A CPC does not confer any independent right. It only allows a person, who has filed an appeal against a decree to challenge any order made under the Code against the party during the pendency of the proceedings. No independent right can be culled out from this provision. 7. Looking at from every point of view, in our opinion First Appeal From Order filed by the appellants is not maintainable and the report made by the Stamp Reporter is fully justified. 8. This First Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.