This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter abbreviated as the Act) is directed against the judgment/award of learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura District dated 18th April, 1990 passed in Misc (LA) Case No.1 of 1987. 2. I have heard Mr. B. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. DB Sengupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. A detailed description of the facts is not necessary in this case as the only point which has been raised in this case is whether any aggrieved party who did not file any application before the learned Land Acquisition Collector can be added as a party by the Land Acquisition Judge during hearing of that case which is referred to him under section 30 of the Act. 4. The facts relevant for answering to this question are that by notification dated 8.2.1985 being No.F.19 (20)ACQ/REV/83 the Government of Tripura acquired some land appertaining to CS Plot Nos.1454 part, 1457 part, 1458 part, 1050 part, 1342 part and 1051 part situate in Mouja Palatana, South Tripura District. During pendency of the land acquisition proceeding before the Land Acquisition Collector some of the interested party made an application to the Land Acquisition Collector for referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge under section 30 of the Act for adjudication of the matter. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura for determination of the question of apportionment of the awarded money. 5. But during pendency of the proceeding before the Land Acquisition Judge the present appellants, namely, Smti Chandra Prava Devi and Shri Sadhana Chandra Goswami filed an application under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for adding them as parties in the case. The learned Land Acquisition Judge granted this petition by making them parties in the reference case. But after appreciation of the evidence on record he did not make any finding that the present appellants were entitled to get any share of the awarded sum. Hence, this appeal. 6. It is argued by Mr. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that a careful scrutiny of the evidence will show that the present appellants have also share in the acquired land. Hence, this appeal. 6. It is argued by Mr. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that a careful scrutiny of the evidence will show that the present appellants have also share in the acquired land. But on going through the evidence on record I find that the present appellants did not adduce any acceptable evidence in support of their claim. The finally published Khatian does not indicate that needs to presume that the parties in whose favour it has been recorded is owner and possessor. This record of rights is, however, rebuttable. But in the instant case, the appellants did not adduce any reliable evidence to rebut the finally published Khaitan. I therefore, find that learned Land Acquisition Judge rightly held that the appellants were unable to prove that they have any manner of title and interest over the acquired land. 7. Apart from this, Mr. Sengupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has urged that the learned Land Acquisition Judge committed an error of law by adding the present appellants as parties in that reference case. It is submitted by Mr. Sengupta that these appellants never approached the Land Acquisition Collector against the award that was made by him. So, according to him the Land Acquisition Judge is not entitled to go beyond the reference. What i$ quite emphatically submitted by Mr. Sengupta is that if any party does not approach the Land Acquisition Collector claiming interest over the acquired land then that party is not entitled to move any application before the Land Acquisition Judge for being added as party. According to him under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10, CPC there is no scope for impleading such parties as parties in the reference case. I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Sengupta, the learned counsel for the respondents. In support of his contention Mr. Sengupta has referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of M/s Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd, Hyderabad & another vs. Mohd Fareeduddin Khan & others reported in AIR 1994 AP 199 . I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Sengupta, the learned counsel for the respondents. In support of his contention Mr. Sengupta has referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of M/s Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd, Hyderabad & another vs. Mohd Fareeduddin Khan & others reported in AIR 1994 AP 199 . In the aforementioned case, the learned Judges after adverting to a number of decisions held mat the aggrieved party, if his case was not already referred, can approach the Collector for reference and the Collector alone is competent to pass an order whether to refer the matter or not to refer the matter and that the civil Court is not competent to entertain an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC and to allow a party to be impleaded after reference to the Court either under section 18 or under section 30 as it is inconsistent with the scheme of reference that has been made or contemplated under sections 18 and 30 of Land Acquisition Act. The remedy of the person whose case has been rejected by the Collector on an application filed for reference is only to approach the competent civil Court, If his case was not already referred, and his case has hot been considered by the Collector, his remedy is to approach the Collector, bat not the civil Court. The question of applying Order 1, Rule 10, CPC by a civil Court after the case was referred to it by a Collector does not arise as section 53 contemplates that save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. 8. I am also of the view that section 53 of the Act applied to provisions of the CPC only to the extent that it is not inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. The scheme of the Act read as a whole will show that the Act does not contemplate for moving of an application for impleadment by a person who was not a party before the Collector and to get his right decided under section 3 0 of the Act. The scheme of the Act read as a whole will show that the Act does not contemplate for moving of an application for impleadment by a person who was not a party before the Collector and to get his right decided under section 3 0 of the Act. The disputants must approach the Land Acquisition Officer for adjudication of the matter and if the Land Acquisition Collector makes a reference, the civil Court has right to decide the title only of those persons whose claim have been referred to by the Collector. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.