MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD arguments on both sides. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is against the order dated 23-7-1993 in l. a. c. No. 51 of 1990 passed by the learned additional civil judge, chikodi, rejecting the revisionist's application filed under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Karnataka Amendment Act of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, 8 guntas of agricultural land belonging to one Smt. Parwatewwa, situated at kabbur village, chikodi taluk had been acquired by the respondent for the state, under his award dated 11-6-1987; arid the amount of compensation for the said land under the said award was paid to the petitioner Smt. Chitra, who received the same under protest. The petitioner is the wife of Smt. Parwatewwa's brother's son. ( 4 ) AFTER said compensation was received by her, the petitioner made an application under Section 18 (1) of the Act, in time, before the respondent land acquisition officer (hereinafter referred to as the l. a. o. ') to make a reference to the court below for adjudication of her claim to enhanced compensation. The l. a. o. , failed to make the reference. She then made an application before the court below under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act, praying for a direction to the l. a. o. , to make the said reference. Her case put forth before the court below was that, the land had been transferred to her by its said owner parwatewwa by relinquishment of her right and interest therein, and that she was also a protected tenant thereof, and, therefore, she is entitled to compensation payable for the land. ( 5 ) AN enquiry was conducted by the court below on the petitioner's said application. Evidence was adduced by her in support of her claim to the said compensation. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned judge of the reference court came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that anytime she was the owner of the said land or had any right or interest therein; and also that she was the protected tenant thereof, although both these pleas set up by her were inconsistent with each other. Therefore, it has held that she had no locus standi to make the petition under Section 18 (3xb) of the act. Therefore, it has held that she had no locus standi to make the petition under Section 18 (3xb) of the act. ( 6 ) INDISPUTABLY, the sole owner of the said land was Smt. Parwatewwa at the time of its acquisition. It is also not a disputed fact that its possession was lost in favour of the respondent-government on 12-3-1977. Subsequently, Smt. Parwatewwa was stated to have given a report to the concerned revenue authority stating her right over the acquired land was relinquished by her in petitioner's favour. On the basis of that report the mutation entry respecting the said land appears to have been altered in latter's favour, and on the basis of said mutation entry she was paid the compensation amount by the l. a. o. , under his said award, since the real owner Smt. Parvatewwa did not come forward to receive the same. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, no legal evidence was brought on record by the petitioner before the court below in proof of the material facts that any relinquishment deed was executed by Smt. Parwatewwa validly transferring the said land in her favour or that she was the protected tenant thereof. Therefore, it is rightly observed in his impugned order by the learned judge of the court below that the said mutation entry in her name did not constitute sufficient legal evidence in proof of either of the said material facts. As such it has held that the petitioner is not a person interested to maintain application under Section 18 (3) (b) of the act. ( 8 ) THE submission of Sri kamate, learned counsel appearing for petitioner was that by virtue of 2nd proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to make such an application before the court below, as she happens to be a 'person interested' since she has received compensation under protest from the l. a. o. , under said award. ( 9 ) TO appreciate the contention of Sri kamate, it is necessary to advert to the said proviso sub-section (2) of Section 31, the relevant provision under Section 18 (3) (b), as also the definition of the expression "person interested" contained in clause (b) of Section 3 of the act. ( 9 ) TO appreciate the contention of Sri kamate, it is necessary to advert to the said proviso sub-section (2) of Section 31, the relevant provision under Section 18 (3) (b), as also the definition of the expression "person interested" contained in clause (b) of Section 3 of the act. Section 31 enjoins payment of compensation under the award for the acquired land by the concerned l. a. o. to the 'person interested' who are entitled thereto according to the award, unless prevented by some or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2) thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 provides for the contingencies to deal with the said compensation in case, if the person interested in compensation does not come forward to receive it or if no person is found entitled to receive the same. This provision runs that:"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 deputy commissioner shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted". Sub-clause (b) of Section 18 (3) provides a remedy for the "person interested" to apply to the reference court within the stipulated time for a direction to the l. a. o. , if he fails within the time allowed to refer the case to it under Section 18 (1) for an adjudication of the claim to the enhanced compensation. Section 18 (3) (b) is as extracted below:"if the deputy commissioner does not make a reference to the court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the court to direct the deputy commissioner to make the reference within such time as the court may fix". Section 18 (3) (b) is as extracted below:"if the deputy commissioner does not make a reference to the court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the court to direct the deputy commissioner to make the reference within such time as the court may fix". Section 18 (1) contemplates making of a written application to the l. a. o. , by any "person interested" seeking reference to the court for the said purpose, "person interested" is defined by clause (b) of Section 3 as under:"the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land". a combined reading of the material Provisions sated above, makes it clear that in the context the word "any person" appearing in 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act, which proviso was relied on by Sri kamate, in support of his submission that they mean and refer to "person interested" as defined by sub-section clause (b) of Section 3, signify not merely the person who received compensation amount from the l. a. o. , but actually the person who had a right or interest in the acquired land which entitled him to claim compensation awardable in respect thereof. Thus, it logically follows from these Provisions that for a person to claim interest in compensation awardable for any acquired land under the Act, he must be shown to possess any legally recognizable right or interest over the land. In the alternative, one must possess lawful authority on behalf of such a person to represent him in a legal proceeding concerning acquisition of a land. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to proye her any right or interest in the land in question. Therefore, she cannot be held a 'person interested' vis-a-vis the acquired land. It is also not her case that its owner Smt. Parwatewwa did execute any power of attorney in her favour empowering her either to claim compensation from the l. a. o. , or to claim enhanced compensation from the civil court. Therefore, she cannot be held a 'person interested' vis-a-vis the acquired land. It is also not her case that its owner Smt. Parwatewwa did execute any power of attorney in her favour empowering her either to claim compensation from the l. a. o. , or to claim enhanced compensation from the civil court. In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the court below. The revision is therefore, devoid of merit. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .