JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J.:- Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 17.10.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing the petitioner’s application, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as a party. 2. Land measuring 8 kanals was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of District Jail at Jagadhri. The land was owned by Sharan Bihari along with his sons Suresh and Naresh. Bhangi Ram and upon his demise, his son Subhash Chand-respondent No.2 was a tenant. Subhash Chand, as per the petitioner, relinquished his possession in favour of the petitioner along with another piece of land on 17.11.1995, on receipt of a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash, duly evidenced by a receipt and an affidavit, dated 17.11.1995. Subhash Chand also executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 17.11.1995. After issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short herein after referred to as “the Act”), the petitioner filed objections, under Section 5A of the Act and participated in proceedings before the Collector. The petitioner appeared before the Collector, at the time of the announcement of the Award, and thereafter filed an application, under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act. The reference was forwarded to the Court of Additional District Judge (I), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. During the pendency of the reference, Subhash Chand cancelled the general power of attorney on 31.7.2006. Bhagat Ram, brother of Subhash Chand, filed an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings. His application was allowed by the Reference Court. As Subhash Chand cancelled the general power of attorney, the petitioner filed an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as a party. The Reference Court, however, dismissed the application, vide order, dated 17.10.2007. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to reject the application, as the petitioner asserts rights, flowing from an agreement, an affidavit, a receipt and a registered general power of attorney, whereby Subhash Chand relinquished his rights over the acquired land, after receipt of Rs.25,000/-. It is further submitted that the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to examine the merits of the plea, set up by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to examine the merits of the plea, set up by the petitioner. The Reference Court was to prima facie examine whether the petitioner asserted any right with respect to the property. The nature of the rights or their legality was beyond the jurisdiction of the Reference Court. It is further submitted that the documents, produced on record, prima facie suggest that the petitioner has a right to the compensation, howsoever small, and should, therefore, have been impleaded as a party. 4. Counsel for respondents, however, state that the petitioner has no right in the property in dispute. There is no document on record evidencing the fact that the agreement, the affidavit, the receipt and the general power of attorney, executed by Subhash Chand, were ever acted upon. In another litigation inter parties, the petitioner’s father deposed that Subhash Chand is in possession, thus, negativing the petitioner’s assertion that the aforementioned documents were ever acted upon. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. As referred to herein above, the petitioner asserts rights, flowing from an agreement, whereby Subhash Chand allegedly relinquished possession in favour of the petitioner, which is evidenced by a receipt, an affidavit, and the registered general power of attorney, dated 17.11.1995. It is not denied that the petition, under Section 30 of the Act, was filed by the petitioner. It is also admitted that during the pendency of the reference, Subhash Chand cancelled the general power of attorney, executed in favour of the petitioner. The reference Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for his being impleaded as a party on the premise that he had failed to prima facie establish his rights/possession over the acquired land and the mere existence of documents, evidencing delivery of possession would not necessarily establish that they were acted upon. Section 30 of the Act reads as follows :­ “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.” 7. The language, appearing in Section 30 of the Act, is clear and unambiguous as to legislative intent to confer jurisdiction upon a Reference Court to decide any dispute, as to the apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom compensation is to be paid. In my considered opinion, the use of the words “any dispute” would necessarily take within their ambit, a dispute relating to possession of land, whatever be its nature. While considering an application for being impleaded as a party in proceedings, under Section 30 of the Act, a Reference Court should, as a general rule, refrain from traversing the merits and confine itself to a prima facie appraisal of the respective assertions. All that the Reference Court is required to determine, while adjudicating such an application, is whether there exists “any dispute” as to the apportionment or the persons entitled to receive compensation. Whether the agreement, the receipt and the power of attorney were acted upon or not is a matter to be determined during final adjudication of the reference, under Section 30 of the Act. The reference Court erred in expressing an emphatic opinion as to legality of the rights flowing from these documents. An alleged statement by the petitioner’s father in other proceedings that Subhash Chand was in possession should also be taken into consideration during adjudication of the reference. Impleading a party does not mean accepting its claim. The provisions of Section 30 of the Act are different from the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC that require a party to establish its right to be impleaded on its status as a necessary or proper party. Proceedings under Section 30 of the Act are akin to proceedings in an interpleader suit and the jurisdiction is similar. 8. As noticed herein above, it is not denied that the petitioner, though as general power of attorney, filed objections, under Section 5A of the Act, and also filed the petition, under Section 30 of the Act. The above facts, in my considered opinion, were sufficient to implead the petitioner as a party to the pending reference, as otherwise, it would result in filing of a separate suit by the petitioner, thus, leading to the possibility of inconsistent judgments. In view of what has been stated above, the revision petition is allowed and the order, dated 17.10.2007 is set aside. In view of what has been stated above, the revision petition is allowed and the order, dated 17.10.2007 is set aside. The petitioner is impleaded as a party to the reference, pending before the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 18.9.2008. ----------------