Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) PETITIONER in this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has sought the quashing of an order, Annexure P-2 passed on 3. 1. 1992 by Shri R. K. Mishra, Land Acquisition Collector (ME), Delhi declining to make a reference on the petitioner s application filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) and has also sought a further direction against the Collector for making reference to court for adjudication of his rights as regards the apportionment of the amount of compensation. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that 42 bighas 10 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 60, 61,62/1, 66/2, 143/1 min. , 414 min. , 468/2, 469/ 1, 472, 473, 474 and 517 situate within the revenue estate of village Jaitpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi was recorded in revenue records in the name of Sunder Singh, son of Jeet Singh as Bhumidar. ( 3 ) A portion out of the aforementioned land, comprised in khasra No. 468/2, 469/ 1,472, 473, 474 and 517 was acquired by the Government for public purpose, namely, for construction of Ash Pond of Badarpur Thermal by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 2. 6. 1989. Collector, Land Acquisition, made his award No. 2/90-91 of village Jaitpur, Delhi on 6-4. 1990 assessing the market value of the acquired land. Since Sunder Singh, son ofjeet Singh, who is respondent No. 4 in this petition, was recorded as Bhumidar with "respect of the aforementioned land, compensation was also assessed in his name. Uttam Singh and Amar Singh, petitioner the two sons of Sunder Singh moved an application on 1. 11. 1991 claiming that the acquired property was ancestral in the hands of their father, who had acquired the same by inheritence from their grand father Jeet Singh and thus they were the co-parceners, being members of Joint Hindu Family. They also claimed that they were in cultivating possession of the acquired land since 1966 by virtue of a family settlement. Both of them claimed to be. in separate possession falling to their respective shares ay per the family settlement. Both of them also claimed that they were entitled to l/4th share each in the amount of compensation and accordingly prayed that a reference be made under Sections 30. Both of them claimed to be. in separate possession falling to their respective shares ay per the family settlement. Both of them also claimed that they were entitled to l/4th share each in the amount of compensation and accordingly prayed that a reference be made under Sections 30. and 31 of the Act for determination of their rights. This application was considered by first respondent, who through the impugned order, annexure P-2, declined to make reference- observing that the petitioner had no claim in the amount of compensation since their rights already stood adjudicated. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of petition in this court an application was moved by Amar Singh (Petitioner No. 2 here in) (CM 6368/93) stating that his name be deleted from the array of parties since he had no claim in the property of his father Sunder Singh. Sunder Singh alone was entitled to receive the amount of compensation. By our separate order of today, we have ordered the deletion of the name of Amar Singh. Now it is Uttam Singh alone who has persued this petition. ( 5 ) CLAIM of Uttam Singh has vehemently been contested by respondent No. 4 in his return. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit for injunction with respect to the entire property, which was got dismissed as withdrawn and, thus, he was now estopped from claiming any share in the amount of compensation. Moreover it has been pointed out that the claim is totally false and baseless and is also contradictory to the stand taken by the petitioner in the civil suit. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) PETITIONER has not disputed the fact that he along with Amar Singh had on 19.-8. 1988 filed a suit for grant of a decree for permanent injunction against his father Sunder Singh. Copy of plaint is also placed on record as annexure R-l. In the suit the petitioner, after describing the property and claiming the same to be ancestral in para 3 alleged that "in a family settlement the defendant N,o. l has given land bearing Khasra No. 60 (4-15), 62/1 (2-8), 472 (4-16), for cultivation to the plaintiff No. 1 in the year 1976 and land bearing Khasra No. 61 (4-16), 66/2 (2-8), 143/1 min (1 -18) was given to the plaintiff no. 2 by the defendant No. l for cultivation in the year 1982. " ( 8 ) FROM the averments made in the plaint it becomes clear that Uttam Singh, petitioner laid a claim with respect to the land comprised in Khasra No. 60, ()2/1 and 472 only whereas Amar Singh laid a claim. with respect to Khasra No. 61, 66/2 and I 43/ 1. Out of the property in which the petitioner laid a claim, only land comprised in Khasra No. 472 measuring 4 bighas 1 6 biswas is the subject matter of acquisition. The other land, which is recorded in the name of Sunder Singh and which lias been acquired is not the one to which claim can be said to have been made by the petitioner in the civil suit. In case the petitioner had claimed [he properly to be ancestral and alleged that there was a family settlement in 1982 and ever since he had been in occupation of the property allotted to him in family settlement, there is no question of petitioenr having any right in any other land other than the one which according to him was given in family settlement. it is pertinent to note that this suit was got dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiffs, without reserving any liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Though it was a suit for injunction but relief of declaration will be deemed to be implicit therein since the plaintiffs claimed title to the property alleging that it was ancestral property in which they had a vested right being members of joint Hindu family. They also in that suit challenged the entries in revenue records to be bad in law showing their father to be the exclusive Bhumidar. Withdrawing such a suit without reserving any liberty to file fresh suit amounts to intentional abandonment of the claim, thus, debarring the plaintiffs from. claiming any title in any part of the land, which was subject matter of the earlier suit. In the application, which was filed on 1. 11. 1991, instead of laying a claim to that part of land which, according to the petitioner, had fallen to his share in family settlement, he laid claim on the entire acquired land, namely, land comprised in Khasra No. 468/2, 469/1, 472, 473/474 and 517. In the application, which was filed on 1. 11. 1991, instead of laying a claim to that part of land which, according to the petitioner, had fallen to his share in family settlement, he laid claim on the entire acquired land, namely, land comprised in Khasra No. 468/2, 469/1, 472, 473/474 and 517. Having abandoned such a claim in civil suit, the petitioner is debarred from laying claim now. ( 9 ) THE Collector, Land Acquisition, declined to make reference on two grounds, firstly that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs which was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner. The second was that title also stood decided by virtue of a decision of the learned Additional District Judge while answering the reference under Section 18 of the Act filed by Sunder Singh. Though the second ground may not be a valid ground in law since while deciding reference under Section 18,-question of title was not involved and the petitioner was not a party to the reference. Such a decision will not be a decision on the question of title. However, the first ground itself is sufficient to negative the petitioner s claim and uphold the validity of the order. In case prior to the petitioner filing an application under Section 30, he had already approached the civil court claiming title to the property held by Sunder Singh and had withdrawn the suit without reserving any liberty. Collector, Land Acquisition was right in not permitting the petitioner to lay a fresh claim to the property of respondent No. 4 and, thus, declining to make reference. Collector in view of this position was not bound to make a reference. ( 10 ) WE accordingly do not find any merit in the petition, which is dismissed. No costs.