R. K. MAHAJAN, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 19th Oc tober, 1995 passed by the Additional Dis trict Judge/special Judge, Dehradun in L. A. Case No. 454of 1990, Virendrakumar v. Collector, in reference sent by opposite party No. 2 under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act praying that the revision may be allowed and the award in Case No. 25 of 1987-88 pertaining to plot Nos. 496, 497 and 499 area 8,83 acres, situate in village Raipur, Pargana Par-wadoon, Tahsil and district Dehradun be set a aside. 2. The short and legal question in this revision, which arises, is that if the person interested has not filed objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be called the Act) and the reference is made by the Collector under Section 30/31 (2) of the Act to the decision of the Collector regarding the apportion ment and disbursement of the compensa tion of money, can he apply to the Court i. e. District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act for impleading as a party as he is a person interested within the meaning of ection 3 (b) of the Act? 3. The brief facts leading to this con troversy are detailed hereinafter: Notification was made with respect to the aforesaid land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18-3-1988. Dec laration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 30-4-1988 and the possession was taken on 30-12-1988. The award was pronounced by the Collector on 28-4-1990. It is also admitted fact that nobody moved application under Section 18 of the Act for making reference and the Collec tor on 6th November, 1990 had made ref erence under Section 31 (2) read with Sec tion 30 of the Act to the Court after depositing the amount. 4. Shri Ravi Kant Jain, learned Coun sel for the revisionists has submitted that certain persons were recorded as Bhumid-hars but they were not in possession in revenue record and some other persons were recorded in possession but their names were not figured in the revenue record as bhumidhar. The revisionists moved an application on behalf of tenure-holder Hari Ram Nagalia & Ors. The revisionists moved an application on behalf of tenure-holder Hari Ram Nagalia & Ors. before the reference court i. e. District Judge al leging that they were co-tenure owners with other tenure-holders and they be im-pleaded as party for disbursement and ap portionment of compensation and the ap plication of Hari Ram etc. was rejected by the Additional District Judge. Sri Jain, learned Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that nobody has made the refer ence and there is no bar of being impleaded as a party before the District Judge for adjudication of the matter in dispute and according to him, the revisionists are inter ested persons and even if they have not filed objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition, they are at liberty to join later on. He has described the order of the Court below as illegal and has not appreciated the correct approach of law. 5. Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the revisionists are not interested persons as they have not filed objections under Sec tion 9 read with Section 11 of the Act, they are debarred to be impleaded as a party and the order of the Court below is correct. He further submitted that the revisionists have lost the litigation before the Civil Court as well as before the Revenue Court and they have suppressed this fact. 6. Both the learned Counsel have relied authorities in support of their respective contentions. The reference would be made later on. 7. I would like to advert the argu ments of Sri Jain, learned Counsel for the revisionists and would like to refer the definition of persons interested as defined in Section 3 (b) of the Act: "the expression person interested in cludes all persons claiming an interest in com pensation to be made on account of the acquisi tion of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is inter ested in an easement affecting-the land. " 8. Reference would be made to Sec tion 4 of the Act under which the notifica tion is issued showing the intention to acquire the land and publicity is given. " 8. Reference would be made to Sec tion 4 of the Act under which the notifica tion is issued showing the intention to acquire the land and publicity is given. Section 9 of the Act contemplates again the procedure to safeguard the persons effected and notice is sent by the Collector showing the intention to take possession and interested persons have to file com pensation claim. The enquiry is held by the Collector regarding the objections includ ing the respective interest of the person claiming compensation and the award is made after applying the principle of natural justice and then the award is passed. Section 12 of the Act lays down as follows: " 12. Award of Collector when to be final.- (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall, except as herein-after provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Col lector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensa tion among the persons interested. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons inter ested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. " 9. The intention of the legislature in Section 12 appears to be apportionment of the compensation after hearing the objec tions of the persons interested and there can be no other intention than this. Then follows Section 18 of the Act for reference before the Court i. e. District Judge. It provides that the person interested, who has not accepted the award, may make an application to the (^lector that he is not satisfied regarding the amount of compen sation or apportionment or measurement. 10. Reference would made to Section 30 of the Act which is being quoted as under: "30. Dispute as to apportionment.-When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the persons to whom 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. " 11. Dispute as to apportionment.-When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the persons to whom 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. " 11. The word the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable has to be read with the language of Section 11 of the Act and in Section 11, only the persons interested should have filed objections and not any third party figures. Section 30 figures after Section 4 of the Act for the apportionment of compensation. Section 31 figures under Part V "payment". The language of Section 31 is quoted with the advantage as under: "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 ac cording to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-sec tion. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there by any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the appor tionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. XXX". 12. The emphasis has been laid down the person entitled to receive the award according to the award and a person who has filed objections under Section 9 of the Act and by no stretch of imagination, a third party can intervene. 13. Section 53 of the Act provides the applicability of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Section 53 is reproduced below: "53. Code af Civil Procedure to apply to proceedings before Court.-Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. " If any provision is contrary to the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court cannot interpret the same in other way. " If any provision is contrary to the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court cannot interpret the same in other way. It is procedural Section and cannot override substantive provision of person interested. Since third party has not made any claim under Section 9 etc. of the Act, such provision is not applicable. 14. Sri Jain, learned Counsel for the revisionists had relied on the decision of Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Fran cis Victor Coutinho (dead) by LRs, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1118. I have gone through the judgment. This ruling is not applicable as the question in this case was involved whether the company for which the land was acquired has locus standi to file appeal and is t person interested? The ratio laid down imthis case is not ap plicable and is distinguishable. The next decision relied by the learned Counsel for the revisionists is of Karanpura Develop ment Company v. Union of India & others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1478. Emphasis was laid on paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of this ruling. I have also perused those para graphs carefully. In my view, this ruling is also not applicable on the facts of the present case. It is now settled law that the facts of the two* cases are not the same and facts of each have to be analysed and only after proper analysis, the law is made ap plicable. 15. Now coming to the submissions made by Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned Coun sel for the respondents. Reference has been made regarding the effect of Suit No. 9 of 1968 in respect of the dispute relating to partition and the decree was passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and against revisionists (see Annexure-4 ). No share was given to the revisionists claimants as they had no title. The copy of the judgment has been an nexed as Annexure-3 to the counter-af fidavit. The copy of the decree passed in. the aforesaid suit has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit. There is also an interesting fact which has been revealed that the claimants had also filed a suit later on under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. The said suit pertained to the declaration and partition of certain land including plot acquired. the aforesaid suit has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit. There is also an interesting fact which has been revealed that the claimants had also filed a suit later on under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. The said suit pertained to the declaration and partition of certain land including plot acquired. The copy of the suit was filed as Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit and the suit was contested. A written statement was also filed. The suit was dismissed in default vide order dated 30-9-1981. The restoration ap plication was also dismissed and so the claimants do not succeed"in litigation. The documents have also now been filed show ing that the land is recorded in the names of the respondents. 16. Sri S. C. Budhwar learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon Tejdhari & Ors. v. Baul & Ors. , AIR 1981 Allahabad 47; Niranjan Singh & Ors. v. Amar Singh & Ors. , AIR 1984 Punjab and Hariyana 250; Govind Narayan Lotlikarv. Smt. Savitribai Roghuvria Lotlikar&ors. , AIR 1987 Bombay 32; Amur Singh Yadav & another v. Shanti Devi others, 1987 LACC 583 (FB), and so on. The ratio of these authorities is with regard to the per son interested. These authorities have laid down law correctly while interpreting per son interested. Itmay be stated that there is always remedy open to third party to establish his claim before the competent Court of jurisdiction and in this case, the revisionists have failed. 17. In view of the aforesaid discus sion, I find that there is no material infir mity or illegality in the impugned order on facts as well as in law. Therefore, the revision lacks force and is liable to be dismissed. 18. The revision fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Revision dismissed. .