JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The disputed properties measuring an area of A. O. 43 decs. under khata No. 74. plot No. 726 situated at Sunapal Mouza-Baramba recorded in the name of deity Sri Sri Kamana Thakurani was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by State of Orissa for establishment of a sugar factory. 2. Award was passed u/s 11 of the Act. Petitioners filed application for apportionment of the awarded amount. Collector referred the matter u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine as to who is entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 5,698/- awarded by the Collector u/s 11 of the Act, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 41 of 1987. 3. Learned trial Court on entering into the reference, issued notices to the claimants, All the claimants appeared and filed their respective claim petitions, and adduced evidence, both documentary and oral to prove their respective cases. The Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Baramba (Executive Ofiicer of the deity) claimed compensation in favour of Sri Sri Kamana Thakurani as the owner of the land and the petitioners claimed compensation amount claiming to be the sikkimi tenants under the deity-iandiord. 4. Learned trial Court after discussing the evidence on record without giving any finding regarding the entitlement to receive the compensation ordered as follows : "The claimants may take the shelter of the competent Court to establish their right, title and interest in respect of the case land and then only it will be possible to determine the claim of the claimants to receive the compensation amount in respect of the case land. Hence intimate the Collector under the L. A. Act accordingly." The order passed by the trial Court is under challenge in this Civil Revision. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that u/s 30 of the Act it is the Court which is competent to adjudicate regarding entitlement of the rival claims. Since the learned trial Court has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him the order is prima fact's wrong and, therefore, the learned trial Court be directed to adjudicate the entitlement of the claimants regarding the compensation amount, it is further submitted that since there has been no adjudication under Sec, 30 of the Act. Since the learned trial Court has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him the order is prima fact's wrong and, therefore, the learned trial Court be directed to adjudicate the entitlement of the claimants regarding the compensation amount, it is further submitted that since there has been no adjudication under Sec, 30 of the Act. no appeal lies u/s 54 of the Act and, therefore, the Civil Revision is maintainable in this Court. 6. Miss. Ghoses, appearing, for the State on the other hand submits that since the learned trial Court has rejected the reference, appeal lies u/s 54 of the Act and, therefore, the Civil Revision is not maintainable. 7. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether this Civil Revision is maintainable or an appeal as envisaged u/s 54 of the Act should have been filed. Section 54 of the Act reads as follows : "Appeals in proceeding before Court-Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1903 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court, subject to the provision contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLV thereof." Since in this case there has been no adjudication by the competent authority regarding the entitlement of any of the claimants, in my opinion, no appeal lies against the impugned order. The impugned order passed in this case also does not come within the meaning and scope of decree as defined in Section 2(2) of C P C. To come within the scope and meaning of a decree u/s 2(2) CPC, there must be a formal and final adjudication conclusively determining the right of the parties in controversy. Substance of the order and nature of the decision are indicative guidelines as to whether the appeal is to be filed or not. Since in this case there has been no final adjudication regarding the controversy raised by the claimants, no appeal lies. Substance of the order and nature of the decision are indicative guidelines as to whether the appeal is to be filed or not. Since in this case there has been no final adjudication regarding the controversy raised by the claimants, no appeal lies. Since no appeal lies against the impugned order, the Civil Revision u/s 115. CPC is maintainable as has been held in Sundarlal v. Faram sukhdas and Ors. VIII 1968 SCD 262 . Therefore, the Civil Revision is maintainable. 8. Coming to the next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the learned trial Court was correct in refusing to give a finding regarding entitlement of any of the claimants to receive the compensation. "Person interested" in Section 3(b) of the Act is an inclusive definition and the first part thereof provides that the expression "person in erested includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. A person shah be deemed to be interested in land it he has some sort of Tight in the land. When the amount of compensation has been settled u/s 11 of the Act 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, Section 30 confers jurisdiction on the Collector to refer such dispute for decision of the Court. In this case as controversy arose between the claimants regarding the entitlement to receive the awarded amount, a reference was made by the Collector to adjudicate . the dispute between the claimants after the award was settled u/s 11 of the Act. The petitioners are '"persons interested" as visualised under Sec, 3(b) of the Act. In that view of the matter, when the Collector referred the dispute regarding entitlement of the claimants to receive the awarded amount, the Court was vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the entitlement of the claimants. Since the learned trial Court did not decide the entitlement of the claimants and has returned the reference to the Collector, he has refused to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in him. Therefore, the order is not sustainable. 9. Since the learned trial Court did not decide the entitlement of the claimants and has returned the reference to the Collector, he has refused to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in him. Therefore, the order is not sustainable. 9. In that view of the matter, I remit the reference to the trial, Court and direct it to adjudicate the entitlement of the claimants and apportion the awarded amount in between the claimants as envisaged u/s 30 of the Act and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed