1. These four revision petitions are the out come of order dated 22nd September 2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Reasi whereby four Miscellaneous petitions viz., 36-Misc titled Punna Vs. Collector Land Acquisition, 37-Misc. entitled Kamla Vs. Collector Land Acquisition, 38-Misc. entitled Gian Chand Vs. Collector Land Acquisition and 39-Misc. entitled Collector Land Acquisition came to dismissed. 2. It appears that land measuring 767 Kanals 8 marlas, situated at village Homina (Salal) Tehsil Reasi came to be acquired by the concerned department and award came to be passed by the Collector vide order dated 24th June, 1983. Some of the award holders-land holders feeling aggrieved, made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for enhancement of compensation. Collector made a reference to the District Judge, Udhampur-Court of reference, which came to be allowed by enhancing compensation in favour of the applicants. 3. It also appears that the Collector-department had preferred an appeal before this Court which came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, a SLP came to be preferred, which came to be dismissed. The said applicants moved an execution petition. During the pendency of Execution petition, the petitioners herein moved the four miscellaneous applications titled above, for release of enhanced compensation on the ground that a joint application was made by the villagers and the applicants were the co-owners/co-sharers. The reference Court dismissed the application vide impugned order on the ground that the petitioners had not moved application in terms of Section 18 of the Act. 4. The core question involved in these petitions is whether the land holder whose land came to be acquired can seek enhancement of compensation without disputing the adequacy of compensation before Collector in terms of Section 18 of the Act? 5. It is beaten law of the land that a Court of reference can exercise its jurisdiction only when reference is made in terms of Section 18 of the Act. 6. Apex Court in a case titled Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhnry & Ors reported as 2006 AIR SACW 5527, held that reference Court gets jurisdiction only when the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is apt to reproduce para 24, as under:- 24. 6. Apex Court in a case titled Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhnry & Ors reported as 2006 AIR SACW 5527, held that reference Court gets jurisdiction only when the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is apt to reproduce para 24, as under:- 24. In Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and anr (2003) 5 SCC, this Court opined: It is established that the reference court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and that civil court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The reference court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it.... 7. This Court in a case tilted Mst. Sarswati and ors vs. Collector Land Acquisition Bhaderwan and ors reported as 1985 SLJ J&K 279 also laid down the same principle. 8. Admittedly, the applicants/petitioners have not made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the applicants were incompetent. 9. If application is not made, then the person, who disputes the adequacy of compensation without filing application, waives the right. Apex Court in a case titled State of Karnataka v. Laxmi reported as AIR 2006 SC 24, laid down the same principle. 10. The petitioners have stated that applications in terms of section 18 of the Act came to be made by the some of the award holders as co-owners/co-sharers and came to be made on their behalf also. It is nowhere stated that they had filed the application(s). 10. The petitioners have stated that applications in terms of section 18 of the Act came to be made by the some of the award holders as co-owners/co-sharers and came to be made on their behalf also. It is nowhere stated that they had filed the application(s). But what is stated is that the applicants who had made the application(s) were the co-sharers and have prayed that they are also entitled to receive the compensation at enhanced rate and in support of their arguments, they have cited judgments of the Apex Court entitled A. Viswanatha Pillai and others v. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others reported as AIR 1991 SC 1966, Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab and others reported as AIR 2003 SC 620, Smt. Kalawati and others v. Union of India and ors reported as AIR 2004 Delhi 351, Aravind & ors v. The Special land Acquisition Officer, Dharwad and anr AIR 2006 (NOC) 746 (Kant) and Pattala Improvement Trust v. S. Amr Singh and ors reported as AIR 2005 NOC 345 (Punjab & Haryana). 11. All these judgments are not applicable to the given circumstances and facts of the case. It is also profitable to mention herein that Section 28-A of Central Act came to be discussed. Section 28-A is not finding place in the State Act and no such amendment has been made till today. 12. In judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC 1966 (supra), it is provided that when co-owner makes a statement in the application for making reference that he and other co-owners or his brothers/sisters are dis-satisfied then in that eventuality, it could be said that other co-owners/brothers/sisters are also entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. 13. Applying the principle to the instant case, no such application has been made. It is apt to reproduce relevant part of the judgment/award of the reference Court which came to be upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, as under:- Keeping all these factors into consideration the applicants have been found entitled to the compensation at the following rates. 14. The reference Court has held that only applicants are entitled to the enhanced compensation. The names of the applicants are given in the title clause. So while going through the judgment/award as it is, no other person can claim the enhanced compensation. 15. 14. The reference Court has held that only applicants are entitled to the enhanced compensation. The names of the applicants are given in the title clause. So while going through the judgment/award as it is, no other person can claim the enhanced compensation. 15. It is also apt to mention herein that the petitioners have remained mute spectators from the date of passing of award i.e., 24th June 1983 till the petitioners filed applications, i.e. 14th September 2002, more than 19 years elapsed i.e. two decades have elapsed. Thus, the applications were not maintainable on this ground also. 16. Even otherwise, that if co-owner makes a submission for making reference in respect of his share and thereafter gets compensation at enhanced rate, the others cannot seek enhanced compensation of their share on the basis of reference made by other co-owner(s). My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment Smt. Ambey Deyi v. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1996 SC 1513. 17. In the given circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is well reasoned and needs no interference. 18. Accordingly, impugned order is upheld and revision petitions are dismissed. Registry to place copy of this order on each petition. Send down the copy of this order to the trial court for information.