Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) SINCE the dispute arise out of the same award made by the Collector, Land Acquisition. We are disposing of the petitions by a common order. ( 2 ) CW 4801/94 is by three claimants, namely. Smt. Kanta Devi Mittal. Smt. Krishna w/o Shri Shish Pal and Shish Pal (hereinafter referred to as the claimants ). Direction has been sought for in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the respondents to tender payment of the amount of compensation in respect of 45 bighas 17 biswas of land situated within the revenue estate of Tughlakabad acquired under award No. 4 of 1994-95. Another direction has also been sought for assessment and grant of additional compensation provided under Section 23 (1a) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the rate of 12% is by Hukam Chand and two others, the sons of late Pt. Leela Ram. who have questioned the legality and validity of an order passed on 16th March. 1995 by the Collector. Land Acquisition by which the Collector declined to make reference to the court for apportionment of the amount of compensation and directed it to be paid to the aforementioned three claimants ( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts as are alleged in CW 1032/95 are that late Pt. Leela Ram in the month of October. 1962 purchased 59 bighas 5 biswas of land in Tughlakabad for the purpose of developing a colony, since he was engaged in the trade of making colonies. It is claimed that though he was the purchaser but transactions were made in the name of different persons, namely. Chander Singh. Dal Singh. Ram Swaroop etc. On April 13. 1972. Pt. Leela Ram expired and was succeeded by the petitioners, his sons. In 1978 a suit was filed against Chander Singh and others claiming that property in fact belongs to the heirs of Pt Leela Ram since Pt Leela Ram had paid the entire amount of consideration In the meanwhile on 5. 11 1980 a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued The land was sought to be acquired for public purpose. Declaration under Section 6 was made on June 6. 1985. Both the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were ultimately quashed by this court on November 18. 11 1980 a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued The land was sought to be acquired for public purpose. Declaration under Section 6 was made on June 6. 1985. Both the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were ultimately quashed by this court on November 18. 1988 in a writ petition - Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, 37 (1989) DLT 150. In the meanwhile Ram Swamp, in his written statement filed in the civil suit admitted the petitioners claim that in fact the petitioners were the owners of the property. D Singh and legal representatives of Ram Swamp in the meanwhile sold the land to the claimants (the petitioners in CW 4801/94 ). which had been purchased by Leela Ram On June 1. 1992 a fresh notification under Sections 4 and 17 ( 1) of the Act was issued notifying the intention of the Government to acquire the property for the planned development of Delhi, namely, wild life sanctuary. In view of invoking of provisions of Section 17 ( 1) of the Act formality of complying with the requirement of Sections 5-A stood waived of. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on July 29, 1992. In response to notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 (1) of the Act, the petitioners herein, namely, three sons of Pt. Leela Ram preferred their claim Award under Section 11 of the Act was made by the Collector. Land Acquisition on May 17. 1994 (Award No. 4 of 1994-95 ). The award stipulated that the payment of compensation will be made to all the Interested persons as per the latest revenue record and as regards cases, where there is dispute, the same shall be referred to the court of learned Additional District Judge for determination of title of apportionment under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. ( 4 ) IT is stated further alleged that the civil suit as regards title of the property is still pending. In view of the aforementioned clause in the award, compensation was not disbursed by the Collector, Land Acquisition. The petitioners were expecting that a reference would be made as regards apportionment to the court. ( 4 ) IT is stated further alleged that the civil suit as regards title of the property is still pending. In view of the aforementioned clause in the award, compensation was not disbursed by the Collector, Land Acquisition. The petitioners were expecting that a reference would be made as regards apportionment to the court. To their surprise on February 28, 1995 an application was moved by the three claimants that since the land is recorded in revenue record in their names, compensation be disbursed to them. Petitioners on March 14,1995 submitted their objections that since there is already a dispute as regards entitlement to compensation and as per the award reference has to be made to the court, the amount of compensation be deposited in the reference court and the reference as regards apportionment be forwarded simultaneously to the court. On March 16, 1995 impugned order was passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition declining to make reference and directing the amount to be paid to the claimants. Surprisingly enough on the same day bonds were also accepted and the amount was disbursed to the claimants. In this background, direction has been sought in CW 1032/95 for quashing of the order dated March 16,1995 and further for realisation of the amount from the claimants and for making of the reference as regards apportionment to the court. ( 5 ) IN CW 4801/94 the claimants on 5. 11. 1994 approached this court with a very innocuous plea that their property had been acquired and they have also been deprived of possession thereof and despite determination ofthe amount ofcompensation on May 17,1994, the Collector. Land Acquisition. despite repeated demands had failed to offer the amount of compensation to them. It is stated that from May 19,1994 to September 26,1994 various applications in writing were made by the claimants to the Collector, Land Acquisition for offering the amount of compensation to them. On August 5. 1994 a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had also been got issued. On October 6,1994 and October 10, 1994 the claimants were assured by the Collector that since the amount of compensation had not been deposited by the acquiring Department and was likely to be deposited shortly, payment will be made shortly on such deposit being made by the acquiring Department. On October 6,1994 and October 10, 1994 the claimants were assured by the Collector that since the amount of compensation had not been deposited by the acquiring Department and was likely to be deposited shortly, payment will be made shortly on such deposit being made by the acquiring Department. In this background prayer aforementioned was made for issuing necessary directions to the respondent to offer the amount of compensation along with 12% p. a. interest under Section 23 (1a) of the Act. ( 6 ) COINCIDENTLY both the petitions came up before court today. Some facts as noticed in CW 1032/95 revealed the clandestine manner in which Surjit Singh. Collector. Land Acquisition proceeded to release the amount of compensation. It is the same Land Acquisition Collector. who has dealt with the entire case at all relevant stages, namely from the stage when interested persons submitted their respective claims till the amount of compensation was disbursed to the claimants Award made on May 17. 1994 states that in pursuance to the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act notices under Sections 9 and 10 ( 1) of the Act were issued to the interested persons inviting claims . The details of the persons who had preferred their claims with particulars of the lands etc. are also given in the award It is also stated in the award that the claims of the interested persons are discussed under the heading "compensation. Claims and Evidence" Under the said heading "compensation. Claims and Evidence" it is stated "the follow ing interested persons have filed their claims giving proofs and evdences of for compensation " Under this heading, names of petitioners, namely, the legal heirs of Pt. Leela Ram are also mentioned and it is stated that they preferred claims with respect to the land in question and their entitlement to compensation. Of course under the same heading, names of the three claimants. Smt. Kanta Devi Mittal and others (petitioners in CW 4801/94) are also mentioned. As per the award, compensation for 142 bighas 6 biswas of land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1. 18. 000/- per bigha. Adding solatium at the rate of 30% and interest under Section 34 w. e. f. 4. 7. 1988 to 3,7. 1989 at 9% p. a. and under Section 34 at the rate of 15% p. a. w. e. f. 4. 7. 1. 18. 000/- per bigha. Adding solatium at the rate of 30% and interest under Section 34 w. e. f. 4. 7. 1988 to 3,7. 1989 at 9% p. a. and under Section 34 at the rate of 15% p. a. w. e. f. 4. 7. 1989 to 12. 5. 1994. the total amount payable under the entire award was stated to be to the tune of Rs. 3. 96. 98. 550/ -. No part of the award deals withactual apportionment of the amount of compensation either in favour of the claimants or in favour ofthe petitioners, namely. the three sons of Pt. Leela Ram. Under the heading "apportionment" it is stated: "the payment of compensation will be made to all the interested persons as per the latest Revenue record. In case there is any dispute, the same shall be referred to the court of A. D. J. for determination of title of apportionment ofthe same u/s 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. " ( 7 ) THUS. while making his award. the Collector himself did not decide the dispute but ordered that in such cases where there was dispute already raised, the same will be referred to the court of Addl. District Judge for determination of title of apportionment under Sections 30-31 ofthe Act. ( 8 ) AS noticed above, the claimants through representations made from May 19, 1994 to September 26. 1994 and through notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure impressed upon the Collector that it was his statutory duty to offer the amount of compensation to them since they were the rightful claimants for the land. According to the version of the claimants on October 6 and October 10. 1994 they were given to understand that the amount of compensation had not been offered since acquiring Department had not sent the amount of compensation to the office of the Land Acquisition Collector and they were assured that the compensation would be paid on its being deposited. This led to their approaching this court by filing CW 4801/94 on 5. 11. 1994. It is interesting to note that in no part of the petition preferred by claimants in this court, seeking direction against the Collector. Land Acquisition and the concerned authorities it was stated that the petitioners in CW 1032/ 95 had also preferred their claims for the same land. 11. 1994. It is interesting to note that in no part of the petition preferred by claimants in this court, seeking direction against the Collector. Land Acquisition and the concerned authorities it was stated that the petitioners in CW 1032/ 95 had also preferred their claims for the same land. Claimants also did not state in their petition that the award had also made a provision for reference of disputes, as regards apportionment, to the court The three sons of late Pt Leela Ram were also not impleaded as parties in their petition. The only persons impleaded as parties in the petition preferred by the claimants Kanta Devi Mittal and others are Union of India. Delhi Admn. /govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Lt Governor of Delhi. Land Acquisition Collection and Chief Engineer (Irrigation and Floods ). . ( 9 ) CW 4801/94 came up before court on November 30. 1994 when a show cause notice was issued, returnable on January 5. 1995 On January 5. 1995 respondents were duly represented by their respective counsel Time was sought for filing reply. which was allowed. Petition was directed to be renotified for 6 2 1995 No reply was filed on behalf of the Collector. Land Acquisition or the other respondents, except the Chief Engineer. Irrigation and Floods, namely, the acquiring Department. In its reply, respondent No. 5 stated that the amount released to the Secretary. Land and Building, till the date of filing of the reply was to the tune of Rs. 3,75,68. 000. 00 by virtue of four different cheques dated 31. 3. 1994 and 30. 12. 1994. It was also stated in the reply that the compensation amounting to Rs. 3. 96. 98,550/-awarded by the Collector. Land Acquisition as per award dated 17 5. 1994 is inclusive of interest with effect from 4 12. 1988 to 125. 1994. This reply dated 27 1. 1995 is supported on the affidavit dated 2. 2. 1995. It was on 4. 7. 1995 that on behalf of other respondents an affidavit was filed by V. B. Pandey. Officer-onspecial Duty (Lit. ). Land and Building Department. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was stated in the affidavit that out of total compensation a sum of Rs. 1,27,91,134. 72 is payable to the claimants. 2. 1995. It was on 4. 7. 1995 that on behalf of other respondents an affidavit was filed by V. B. Pandey. Officer-onspecial Duty (Lit. ). Land and Building Department. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was stated in the affidavit that out of total compensation a sum of Rs. 1,27,91,134. 72 is payable to the claimants. Break up of the amount, according to the share of claimants, is also shown as follows: ( 10 ) IT was also stated that as against the payment of Rs. 3. 96. 98. 550. 00 an amount of Rs. 22. 25. 68. 000. 00 - had already been received from the Department concerned by the Collector. Land Acquisition and the same had been duly disbursed to the owners. Out of the remaining amount a sum of Rs. 1,00,00. 600. 00 still remained to be deposited. Nowhere it is stated that on 16. 3. 1995 some amount had already been released and paid to the claimants after deciding their applications. In para 9 it was stated that the compensation as assessed in the name of the petitioner was objected to by one Hukam Chand in Claim No. 11,12, 14 and 18. ( 11 ) THUS, the reply filed on 4. 7. 1995 in CW 4801/94 is absolutely silent as regards the dispute, its nature and decision, if any. thereupon taken by the Land Acquisition Collector or of the fact that to the claimants some amount had already been released in pursuance to the order dated 16. 3. 1995. The writ petition was earlier taken up in court on 30. 3. 1995 by which date reply had not been preferred by respondents l to 4. On 30. 3. 1995 the case was adjourned to 7. 7. 1995. The reply which had been filed on 5. 7. 1995 was not before the court when the case was taken up On 7. 7. 1995. On 7. 7. 1995 time for filing rejoinder was given and case was directed to be posted for today. ( 12 ) NOW taking the facts as stated in CW 1032/95 it will be noticed that already there had been a direction made by the Collector, Land Acquisition in the award passed by him that in such cases where disputes had been raised, a reference as regards apportionment will be made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. On 28. On 28. 2. 1995 the claimants moved three separate applications stating that the petitioners had no case and were not entitled to the amount of compensation. Only the claimants are entitled to the amount of compensation Since the petitioners name is not recorded in the revenue record their claim is not maintainable and is also expressly barred under provisions of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act and Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. 1988 They also stated that even Suit No 885/78 pending in the Delhi High Court was wholly misconceived and not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act After narrating various provisions of law a prayer was made that compensation may kindly be ordered to be paid to them as per their shares recorded in the revenue record Petitioners on 14 3 1995 preferred their objections, pointing out that already a provision had been made in the award as regards apportionment In the objection petition Sections 29 30 and 31 of the Act were quoted by the petitioners stating that there was no other option with the Collector, Land Acquisition except to deposit the amount of compensation in the reference court and to forward the reference to the Additional District Judge It was also stated that question as regards title to the property was also a subject matter of civil suit pending in the High Court ( 13 ) SAME Collector. Land Acquisition. namely. Surjit Singh who had made the award, proceeded to dispose of the three applications and petitioners objections by a common order stating that the petitioners had no right to receive the amount of compensation in view of the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act He proceeded to make an order that the amount of compensation be paid to the claimants, namely. Kanta Devi. Sis Pal and Krishna as per their shares recorded in the revenue records Collector s attention was also drawn by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that. out of the heirs of Pt Leela Ram. Kanta Devi. Sis Pal and Krishna as per their shares recorded in the revenue records Collector s attention was also drawn by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that. out of the heirs of Pt Leela Ram. Trilochan Singh and Dharam Singh had expired and notice deserved to be issued to their legal heirs before passing any order Collector declined to issue notices to them stating that interest of all the heirs was joint and even in their absence estate of Pt Leela Ram was sufficiently represented before him( 14 ) AFTER having passed the order on 16 3 1995. It is interesting to note that on the same day, the same Collector. Land Acquisition proceeded to accept sureties on behalf of Kanta Devi. Krishna and Sis Pal Sis Pal. claimant, was paid an amount of Rs. 48. 85. 599. 75 on the surety of his wife Krishna (also one of the claimants) and that of Madan Lal Mittal. the husband of the third claimant Kanta Devi Mittal Similarly amount ofrs 31. 35. 594 75 was released to claimant Kanta Devi on the surety other husband Madan Lal Mittal and her son Sneh Kumar Mittal Needless to add that surety ofmadan Lal Mittal had also accepted for the amount released in favour of Sis Pal In so far as Krishna is concerned. an amount ofrs 15 lacs was paid to her again on the surety of her husband Sis Pal (who himself is a claimant) and that of Madan. Lal Mitttal (husband of Kanta Devi) All these surety bonds w ere duly accepted by the same Land Acquisition Collector on the same day when he pronounced his order. namely. 16. 3. an amount ofrs 15 lacs was paid to her again on the surety of her husband Sis Pal (who himself is a claimant) and that of Madan. Lal Mitttal (husband of Kanta Devi) All these surety bonds w ere duly accepted by the same Land Acquisition Collector on the same day when he pronounced his order. namely. 16. 3. 1995 ( 15 ) AFOREMENTIONED dates and other details we have tried to highlight in order to demonstrate the manner in which Collector Land Acquisition has proceeded to disburse an amount of more than rupees one crore in favour of the claimants, whose title was in serious dispute in the claims preferred by the petitioners, in pursuance to notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and for which a provision had already been made by the same Land Acquisition Collector in the award that in their case reference as regards apportionment would be made to the court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act The undue haste as shown by the Collector in dealing with applications of the claimants proceeding to dispose of the objections and accepting surety, bonds is a matter which should be the concern of respondents 2 and 3 (in CW 1032/95 ). for which action on their behalf would be needed to curb such undue anxiety shown by the Collector in releasing a huge amount, despite objections and despite provisions made in the award. ( 16 ) PART IV of the Act comprising Sections 29 and 30 deal with the Collector s procedure for the apportionment of the amount of compensation between the claimants, if there are more than one. Section 29 of the Act provides that if the parties agree before the Collector regarding apportionment. the award will incorporate the said agreement and that the same shall be the conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment. In the instant case we are not concerned with Section 29 since there was no agreement between the petitioners and the claimants as regards apportionment Consequently it will be Sections 30 and 31 of the Act which would be attracted. Section 30 of the Act says: "30. Dispute as to apportionment.- When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11. Section 30 of the Act says: "30. Dispute as to apportionment.- When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11. 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. the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. "two types of cases are contemplated under Section 30 which would be referred to the court. namely. (a) dispute regarding apportionment of compensation: and (b) the person to whom compensation is payable. Section 11 of the Act enjoins upon the Collector to enquire into the objections as to the measurement, value of the land and respective interests of the persons. Thus. his award has to be as to the area of the land. compensation amount and also apportionment of the same amongst various persons claiming or believed to be interested in the land to the Collector s knowledge. Section 11 deserves to be quoted: "11. Enquiry and award by Collector.- (1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8. and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4. sub section (1) and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of - (i) the true area of the land (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land: and (iii)-the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. of whom. or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Governmnent or of such officer as the appropriate Governnent may authorise in this behalf: Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases, as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government. he may without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of, such agreement. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908. (16 of 1908 ). no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act. " ( 17 ) PRESENCE of word "shall" in sub-section (1) of Section 11 makes it obligatory and also enjoins upon the Collector to enquire into the objections as regards measurements, value of land and respective interests of the persons. Award has to be as regards area of land. compensation amount and apportionment amongst the persons claiming or believed to be interested. In case during pendency of proceedings before the Collector, till he makes award, an agreement is reached amongst various persons claiming to be interested to the amount of compensation. Collector by virtue of Section 29 read with Section 11 (2) isrequired to record the said fact in award and such apportionment as agreed, is conclusive fact as regards apportionment. In case there is a dispute, which is not resolved by parties amongst themselves. it is open to the Collector to make a reference to the Court under Section 30 for its decision. Section 30 states that duty as regards reference for apportionment is not mandatory. The Collector may or may not refer the case to the reference court. It is open to him either to decide himself or refer to the Court as to the apportionment matter. Once the Collector gives a decision in regard to apportionment, the power of reference ceases At that stage the course open to the person aggrieved would be to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act as regards apportionment to the court. ( 18 ) IN the instant case. Once the Collector gives a decision in regard to apportionment, the power of reference ceases At that stage the course open to the person aggrieved would be to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act as regards apportionment to the court. ( 18 ) IN the instant case. the Collector in fact had exercised his option in the award itself by not taking a decision himself stating that in such case where there is a dispute as regards apportionment, reference thereon will be made to the court of the Addl. District Judge in accordance with Sections 30 and 31 of the Act This discussion leads us to Section 31 which says "31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.- (1) On making an award under Section 11. the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section (2) If they shall not consent to receive it. or if there be no person competent to alienate the land. or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it. the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. Provided that am person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or am part of any compensation awarded under this Act. to pay the same to the person law fully entitled thereto. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may with the sanction of the appropriate Government, isntead of awarding a money compensation in respect of am land. make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land. either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land-revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other w ay as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land. either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land-revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other w ay as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. (4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into am arrangement with am person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof. " "sub section (1) of Section 31 makes it obligatory on the part of the Collector to tender the amount of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entiled thereto, according to the award and further a duty is enjoined upon him to pay the same unless prevented by some other contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 casts a duty on the Collector that. in case (i) the claimant does not consent to receive the payment; or (ii) if there is no person competent to alienate the land. or (iii) in case there is a dispute as regards title to receive compensation; or (iv) if the dispute is as regards apportionment; to deposit the amount in court to which he will make a reference in the matters at issue. " ( 19 ) TAKING the facts of the case as they are and the tenor of the award. it was not only the statutory duty but it w as also obligatory on the part of the Collector to have deposited the amount of compensation with the reference court with respect to the land for which there was a dispute as to the title to receive the amount of compensation Objections were already before him and the claims had been preferred by the petitioner before making of the award Claims preferred for the same land by the petitioners and claimants were the disputes adverted to in the award. as regards title Award was made by the Collector on 175 1994 The Collector thereafter could not have entertained the applications either from the petitioners or from the claimants as regards disbursement of the amount of compensation for the disputed land and had no jurisdiction to make an order for release of the amount of compensation without resorting to the procedure referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 31 by depositing the amount and refering the disputes as regards entitlement to the court ( 20 ) OTHERWISE also there is no power of review conferred under the Act on the Collector Having made a provision in the award that the dispute as regards apportionment will be forwarded to the court which also included the dispute as regards the title to receive the same. the Collector became functus officio in so far as the decision regarding apportionment is concerned and thereafter could not have reviewed his own order, since there is no power of review provided under the provisions of the Act The only course open to him was (a) to deposit the amount of compensation in the reference court and then to make a reference, to the court, of dispute, namely title to receive the amount of compensation. namely whether petitioners or the claimants were entitled to receive the same Collector, thus. exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the application of 28 2 1995 and also exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in proceeding to make an order on 16 3 1995 in allowing the amount to be released in favour of the claimants Collector having acted against the express provision of sub-section (2) of Section 31 in making payment of the amount of compensation, when there was a dispute as to who would receive the same. the only course left open to us would be to direct the Collector to call upon the claimants to forthwith deposit the amount with him. since claimants were not entitled to receive the amount of compensation, in view of the pendency of the dispute or in other words till decision by the reference court as regards entitlement to the amount of compensation The claimants are bound to refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 15% p a from the date when the amount was released in their favour till the date the amount is deposited back with the Collector. Land Acquisition ( 21 ) IN view of the aforementioned while allowing CW 1032/95 we quash the order passed on 163 1995 by the Collector. Land Acquisition and dismiss CW 4801/94 We direct respondents 3 to 5 in CW 1032/95 to deposit with the Collector. LandAcquisition the amount released in their favour along with interest at the rate of 15% p a from the date when the amount was released till the date of deposit, within a period of two weeks from today and further direct respondent No 1. namely. Collector. Land Acquisition to deposit the amount in court to which a reference will be forwarded by him as regards the persons entitled to receive the same with respect to the land in question On deposit by the Collector of the amount in the reference court, the reference court will proceed to direct its investment in a nationalised bank as may be considered appropriate by the said Court, for the duration of the proceedings in the reference and the same along with interest will be released in favour of the persons held entitled thereto Petitioners in CW 1032 95 are also held entitled to costs quantified at Rs 10. 000/-payable equally by the respondents.