Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioner is alleging that the collector did not pay her compensation. She is also asking for a mandamus directing the collector to refer the matter for decision of the court on the basis of her application filed under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The questions are whether she was entitled to get compensation, and whether the s.18 application made by her was maintainable. I agree with counsel for the state that the petitioner was not entitled to get any compensation. She never participated in the proceedings. I do not find any merit in her counsel’s argument that she had not been noticed by the collector. The collector was to notice the interested persons on the basis of record of rights. Notice was given to the person in whose favour the award was made. The S.18 application made by the petitioner was not maintainable, as rightly said by counsel for the state. The petitioner was not named in the award. If she was aggrieved by the decision to pay compensation to the person named in the award, she was at liberty to file an application under s.30, or to file a civil suit before the competent court. She did not file any s.30 application and the money was disbursed by the collector. Under the circumstances, her remedy, if any, is only in a civil suit, if can be filed now according to law. She is, however, not entitled to any relief from the writ court. For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.