JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by Khatedar & seller of his half share (24 bighas & 8 biswa) in agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.201 & 202 measuring total 48 bighas 16 biswa situated in village Khatipura Beed, Tehsil/District Jaipur, seeking mandamus against respondent No.3 (Land Acquisition Officer, JDA) to refer the dispute to Civil Court arising out of Award dated 26/06/89 (Ann.1). 2. Notification Under section 52(2) of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ("UI Act") was issued and published in official gazette dated 10/10/79 intending to acquire agricultural land situated in village Khatipura Beed including land alleged to be share of petitioner in Khasra NO.201 & 202 measuring 24 bighas 8 biswa. It was followed by notification dated 20/04/84 Under section 52(1) declaring the acquired land being needed for public purposes; and being vested in State Government. Thereafter notice dated 21/04/87 (Ann.R.5/3) Under Section 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ("LA Act") was issued to Khatedar (petitioner) by respondent-3 (LAO) for submitting claim for determination of compensation; and after considering respective claims and objections filed by "persons interested", Award dated 26/06/89 (Ann.1) was passed putting condition that payment of compensation would be made only after production of title over the acquired land in dispute. Petitioner alongwith Hathroi Girh Nirman Sahkari Samiti filed CWP-2434/92 before this Court assailing Award dated 26/06/89 (Ann.1) and prayed for inter-alia ad infra: (i) The impugned orders dated 26/02/89 may kindly be quashed and it may kindly be declared that whole of the acquisition proceedings of petitioner's land based on aforesaid notification have lapsed under the provisions of section 1-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984; (ii) the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to regularise the aforesaid scheme of the petitioners society in accordance with law; or alternatively, the scheme of petitioner society may kindly be regularised in accordance with provisions of the order dated 31/01/1990 and if at all necessary by de-acquiring the aforesaid land." In CWP-2434/92, it had been pleaded by petitioner in para 2 that the housing society approached the petitioner for purchase of land for its purpose and after negotiations, an agreement was entered into between the society & petitioner-khatedar of land in dispute on 11/05/80, whereby it was agreed to sell the land bearing Khasra NO.201 & 202 measuring 24 bighas 8 biswas situated in village Khatipura beed (Jaipur) for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- per bigha and possession whereof was also handed over to the housing society. 3. It was also pleaded in para 13 of CWP- 2434/92 inter-alia that petitioner Society after taking possession of the land chalked out plan of housing scheme dividing it into 347 plots; and allotted the plots to its members who accordingly are in possession whereof. CWP- 2434/92 came to be dismissed on 27/08/97 for want of prosecution. 4. Thereafter petitioner filed another CWP-81/97, inter-alia pleading therein that he was in possession of some part of land of Khasra NO.201 & 202 but respondents State & JDA were intending to dispossess him from the land and inter-alia prayed ad infra: "(i) to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof, and thereby direct the respondents to not to interfere in possession of the petitioner over the land bearing khasra NO. 201 & 202 measuring 48 bighas & 17 biswas situated in village Khatipura, Tehsil & district Jaipur; (ii) to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and costs be also awarded." CWP-81/97 was dismissed on merits with costs of Rs.5,000/- by this Court vide order dated 31/03/97. 5. Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that the LAO be directed to refer the matter to the Civil Court with regard to adjudicate title of the land in question in terms of Award dated 26/06/89 (Ann.1). It has been inter-alia pleaded that petitioner received a notice dated 09/12/98 (Ann.3) issued by respondent JDA, calling upon him to submit documents relating to title of Khasra No.201 & 202, to which reply was also filed by him and as the State Government took decision to allot 12% of developed land in lieu of cash compensation; therefore, he being khatedar of land in question acquired by respondents State, all agreements having been entered into during intervening period may be treated to have been revoked and thus reiterated while making further representation dated 18/12/98 (Ann.5) alongwith supporting documents and since dispute with regard to title could not have been settled, he has raised grievance for making reference to the Civil Court. 6. 6. In their reply, respondents-State inter-alia averred that in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and delay in acquisition of the land, State Government took policy decision to take possession of the acquired land by entering into agreement with the land holder, for which guidelines have been issued from time to time; while vide circular dated 02/03/95 (Ann.R.1), the Government decided that if Khatedar is ready to surrender entire land under acquisition then in lieu of compensation 12% of land under acquisition will be allowed to Khatedar after development. Vide circular dated 22/01/96 (Ann.R.2) it was further clarified that policy decision (Ann.R.1) would also be applicable to those cases wherein Award was already passed but compensation has not been paid so far - in pursuance whereof, the JDA issued notice (Ann.R.3) published in daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 03/10/96 pointing out that persons named in the notice being as legal representatives of Awardee may claim 12% developed land in lieu of monetary compensation and may also file copy of agreement with the JDA; and all those having any objection may also file their counter claim. Respondents further averred that pursuant to public notice (Ann.R.3), large number of persons filed their claims and since there was dispute as regards title of land in question bearing Khasra NO.201 & 202, letter dated 09/12/98 (Ann.3) was issued to respective claimants including petitioner to submit proof of their title over the land in dispute-in pursuance whereof, petitioner filed application stating that if the LAO is not able to decide dispute about title over the land in dispute, matter be referred to Civil Court. 7. Respondents further averred in additional pleas that representation was also received from Jagdamba Colony Vistar Vikas Samiti having been addressed to Commissioner JDA, inter-alia stating therein that land in Khasra NO.201 & 202 measuring 48 bighas 13 biswas situated in village Khatipura Beed was sold by Jodharam through property dealer Dashrath Singh for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- per bigha, for which an agreement was executed on 11/05/80 (Ann.R.10) in favour of Hathroi Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, which in turn sub-divided and allotted plots to its members; in such circumstances, petitioner after having entered into agreement on 11/05/80 and having taken the value of his land from the society, is not entitled to any compensation. 75,000/- per bigha, for which an agreement was executed on 11/05/80 (Ann.R.10) in favour of Hathroi Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, which in turn sub-divided and allotted plots to its members; in such circumstances, petitioner after having entered into agreement on 11/05/80 and having taken the value of his land from the society, is not entitled to any compensation. In support whereof, respondents have produced copy of affidavit dated 14/08/89 (Ann.R.11) of petitioner wherein he deposed of having sold and handed over possession of his land to the housing society and was thus having no interest over the land in dispute. 8. At the same time, reply has been filed by respondent NO.4 (Jagdamba Colony Vistar Vikash Samiti) reiterating therein that agreement was executed by petitioner in favour of housing society on 11/05/80 in pursuance whereof, possession of the land was also handed over by him and after demarcating & subdividing the land into plots, the same were allotted to members of housing society. The same is the reply filed by added respondent Nos.5 to 10. 9. However, respondent JDA has filed affidavit dated 26/03/09 inter-alia pointing out that after passing of the Award dated 26/06/89 (Ann.1) by LAO, deposited amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.36,91,517/- through cheque to the Civil Judge Jaipur City vide letter dated 10/09/91 (Ex.R.1) and the petitioner was also informed vide letter dated 21/09/91 (Ex.R.2). Since no one came forward before Civil Judge to claim compensation, the JDA later on requested vide letter dated 19/02/99 (Ex.R.3) to the Civil Judge to return the cheque amount of compensation since dispute with regard to title over the alleged acquired land was not settled and other Khatedar/persons interested have submitted their claims for 12% developed land in lieu of cash compensation; and in pursuance whereof, Civil Judge sent back the amount of compensation vide letter dated 09/04/99 (Ex.R.4.). 10. It has also been deposed that the JDA has reserved 12% developed land for allotment to claimants on account of acquisition of the land of Khasra No. 201 & 202 measuring 48 bighas 16 biswa in village Khatipura Beed, Jaipur and this allotment would be made only after dispute being resolved inter se between the claimants, as is evident from letter dated 31/07/2000 (Ex.R.5). 11. 11. Counsel for petitioner submits that once LAO arrived at conclusion that there was dispute about apportionment of compensation, he was under obligation to refer the matter to the competent civil court having jurisdiction for adjudication as contemplated Under section 30 of LA Act. Counsel further submits that there is no limitation provided for making reference Under section 30 of LA Act; since LAO himself has found himself incompetent to decide title for apportionment of compensation; hence, was under obligation to reference the matter immediately to competent civil court but having failed to discharge its legal duty, for which petitioner could not be penalised and even if there is any delay; inasmuch as in absence of matter being referred to the competent civil court, right having accrued to him under law has been seriously prejudiced and infringed; as he has been deprived of 12% developed land in lieu of cash compensation, to which he is entitled for under law but nothing has been paid to him and thus action of respondents is in clear violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. 12. Counsel further submits that once the JDA deposited amount of compensation before civil judge as is evident from letter dated 10/09/91 (Ex.R.1) annexed with additional affidavit, no notice was issued by civil court of reference being made by as is evident from letter dated 10/09/91 (Ex.R.1.) thus, competent civil court may be directed to adjudicate reference sent by LAO on merits. 13. On the other hand, respondents raised preliminary objection that the Award itself was challenged by petitioner in CWP-2434/92 along with Hathroi Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti which was dismissed. Later on he preferred CWP-81/97 praying for injunction against dispossession from the land in question being intended by JDA which too was dismissed on merits with costs of Rs.5,000/- vide order dated 31/03/97; on the basis whereof, Counsel for respondents submits that present petition is not maintainable being barred by principles of res judicata seeking direction for making reference of dispute to civil court after a decade of Award being passed by the authority. 14. 14. That apart, when petitioner himself averred in earlier CWP-2434/92 that he had executed agreement with society on 11/05/80 and submitted an affidavit in support whereof that he sold his share in the disputed land after having handed over possession whereof to the society, such grievance cannot be raised at a belated stage in seeking direction for making reference Under section 30 of LA Act to civil court for settlement of dispute about title and the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles seeking equitable jurisdiction of this Court U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Counsel for respondents further submits that petitioner had an opportunity for making reference for apportionment of compensation by way of filing application before the Collector Under section 18 of LA Act; but for which, period of limitation has expired long back while reference sought Under section 30 of LA Act is not applicable in the facts & circumstances of instant case. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar ( 2003(3) SCC 128 ) & Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India ( 2004(7) SCC 362 ) . 16. Counsel for respondent JDA submits that since there was dispute in regard to title amount of compensation was so deposited in Civil Court in terms of section 31 of LA Act but no reference was made to the competent civil court and thus after eight years, letter was sent to withdraw the amount which was received by JDA on 09/04/99 (Ex.R.4) and 12% developed land has been kept reserved in lieu of cash compensation as regards land acquired of Khasra No.201 & 202 as is evident from letter dated 31/07/2000(Ex.R.5) and since dispute of title inter se being not resolved, the land having been kept reserved by JDA could not have been allotted to the persons interested or entitled for under law. 17. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. It is not disputed that petitioner participated in the proceedings, while the Award (Ann.1) being passed on 26/06/89. It is also evident from document (Ann.R.5/3) that notice dated 21/04/87 of proceedings initiated Under section 9 & 10 of LA Act were served upon petitioner and after opportunity being afforded to him, the Award was passed on 26/06/89 (Ann.1). It is not disputed that petitioner participated in the proceedings, while the Award (Ann.1) being passed on 26/06/89. It is also evident from document (Ann.R.5/3) that notice dated 21/04/87 of proceedings initiated Under section 9 & 10 of LA Act were served upon petitioner and after opportunity being afforded to him, the Award was passed on 26/06/89 (Ann.1). It is also not the case of petitioner that he never participated in acquisition proceedings or Award dated 26/06/89 was passed behind his back. He could not say so obviously because he himself alongwith Hathroi Grih Nirman Sahakar Samiti had challenged Award dated 26/06/89 by way of filing CWP-2434/92, which was indisputably dismissed for want of prosecution. 18. It is true that cash compensation has been determined by LAO under Award dated 26/06/89 but it was observed that there being dispute with regard to title over the disputed land under acquisition, therefore, cash compensation could not have been disbursed. After the Award being passed, if at all aggrieved and petitioner intended to get cash compensation apportioned among persons interested, certainly remedy was available to him of filing application before Collector for making reference Under section 18 of LA Act. Had such an application been filed, Collector was under legal obligation to make reference having no discretion left to examine as to whether dispute is to be referred if it relates to four clauses of Reference Under section 18(1) of LA Act subject to period of limitation provided Under section 18(2) of LA Act. 19. At the same time, section 30 of LA Act also provides of making reference if there is dispute with respect to apportionment of compensation among persons to whom it is payable and that no period of limitation is provided for making reference by Collector to civil court. 20. Apex Court in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) after comparative study of Sections 18 & 30 of LA Act laid down principles and scope of these two provisions summarising ad infra: "26. The scheme of the Act reveals that the remedy of reference under section 18 is intended to be available only to a 'person interested'. 20. Apex Court in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) after comparative study of Sections 18 & 30 of LA Act laid down principles and scope of these two provisions summarising ad infra: "26. The scheme of the Act reveals that the remedy of reference under section 18 is intended to be available only to a 'person interested'. A person present either personally or through representative or on whom a notice is served under section 12 (2) is obliged, subject to his specifying the test as to locus, to apply to the Collector within the time prescribed under section 18(2) to make a reference to the Court. The basis of title on which the reference would be sought for under section 18 would obviously be a pre-existing title by reference to the date of the award. So is Section 29, which speaks of 'persons interested'. Finality to the award spoken of by Section 12 (1) of the Act is between the Collector on one hand and the 'persons interested' on the other hand and attaches to the issues relating to (i) the true area, i.e. measurement of the land, (ii) the value of the land, i.e. the quantum of compensation, and (iii) apportionment of the compensation among the 'persons interested'. The 'persons interested' would be bound by the award without regard to the fact whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not. The finality to the award spoken of by Section 29 is as between the 'persons interested' inter se and is confined to the issue as to the correctness of the apportionment. Section 30 is not confined in its operation only to 'persons interested'. It would, therefore, be available for being invoked by the 'persons interested' if they were neither present nor represented in proceedings before the Collector, nor were served with notice under section 12(2) of the Act or when they claim on the basis of a title coming into existence post award. The definition of 'person interested' speaks of 'an interest in compensation to be made'. An interest coming into existence post-award gives CW rise to a claim in compensation which has already been determined. Such a person can also have recourse to Section 30. The definition of 'person interested' speaks of 'an interest in compensation to be made'. An interest coming into existence post-award gives CW rise to a claim in compensation which has already been determined. Such a person can also have recourse to Section 30. In any case, the dispute for which Section 30 can be invoked shall remain confined only (i) as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation or any part thereof, or (ii) as to the persons to whom the amount of compensation(already determined) or any part thereof is payable. The State claiming on the basis of a pre-existing right would not be a 'person interested', as already pointed out herein above and on account of its right being pre-existing, the State, in such a case, would not be entitled to invoke either Section 18 or Section 30 seeking determination of its alleged pre-existing right. A right accrued or devolved post award may be determined in a reference under section 30 depending on Collector's discretion to show indulgence, without any bar as to limitation. Alternatively, such a right may be left open by the Collector to be adjudicated upon in any independent legal proceedings. This view is just, sound and logical as a title post award could not have been canvassed upto the date of the award and should also not be left without remedy by denying access to Section 30. Viewed from this angle, Section 18 and 30 would not overlap and would have fields to operate independent of each other." Afore quoted principles have also been taken note by Apex Court in Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India , ibid, after having considered observations in G.H.Grant (Dr.) v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 237 ). 21. Thus, it is clearly manifest from principles laid down by Apex Court (supra) that persons having participated in acquisition proceedings can apply for reference Under section 18 of LA Act, which is to be invoked when persons claiming pre-existing right and have a notice of acquisition proceedings; whereas section 30 of LA Act could be invoked only by persons having no notice of proceedings or a right has come into existence after acquisition proceedings or accrued or devolved after post-award may be determined in a reference Under section 30 depending on Collector's discretion to show indulgence, without any bar as to limitation. 22. 22. Petitioner claiming pre-existing right not only had received a notice but also participated in acquisition proceedings wherein Award was passed on 26/06/89 (Ann.1). As observed (supra), it was never his case that there was no notice served upon him of acquisition proceedings initiated by LAO while passing of the Award. In such circumstances, remedy available to him was to invoke and apply before Collector Under section 18 of LA Act, for which period of limitation was six weeks as provided Under section 18(2) and if at all sub-section (2)(b) of section 18 is taken note of, period of limitation is six months from the date of Collector's Award. Despite remedy being available to him, no application was filed seeking reference as provided under law. 23. As regards section 30 of LA Act, petitioner is not entitled for making reference as observed (supra) and as per law laid down, reference could have been made Under section 30 only if right being accrued or devolved post award subject to discretion of Collector depending upon facts to be examined in each case. In the opinion of this Court, petitioner cannot now seek mandamus in equitable jurisdiction U/Art. 226 of Constitution of making reference for adjudication of alleged dispute as regards title over the land in dispute Under section 30 of Act. 24. Further submission made by Counsel for petitioner is that matter was referred to Civil Court and money was also deposited, as would be evident from documents (Ex.R.1) placed by respondent-JDA on record and since no notice was served upon of the Reference which has resulted in depriving him of legitimate right and he cannot be made remediless in getting his dispute in regard to title being adjudicated by forum under law. Such a submission in the opinion of this Court is without any merit for the reason that land acquisition officer vide letter dated 10/09/91 (Ex.R.1) in fact has not made any reference to the civil court but only deposited compensation determined vide Award dated 26/06/89 Under section 31 of LA Act, because title over the acquired land having been disputed among Khatedars including Jodha & Ramsukh could not be resolved and the money was sent back to the JDA by civil court on 09/04/99 (Ex.R.4) only for the reason that no person made any reference for adjudicating the dispute about title over the acquired land. Since no reference was made to civil court Under section 18 or 30 of LA Act, amount was rightly refunded back to the authority vide letter dated 09/04/99 (Ex.R.4). 25. Even preliminary objections raised have merit and petitioner is not entitled for equitable relief as claimed. It is also settled that in every proceeding, whole of the claim which one is entitled to make, should be made and if he omits to sue in respect of any portion of the claim, he cannot later on sue for portion so omitted. If that is permitted, there will be a never ending litigation and same proceedings would be assailed by persons time and again on numerous grounds being available at its discretion. 26. On two different occasions, he approached this Court assailing the Award dated 26/06/89 (Ann.1) by way of filing CWP-2434/92 and CWP-81/97. First petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27/08/97 while second one was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- on merits vide order dated 31/03/97; and if at all he was aggrieved against apportionment of compensation and if Collector failed to make any reference, he had an opportunity to raise grievance in his earlier writ petitions. In the opinion of this Court, instant petition is barred by principles under Order 2, Rule 2 , CPC and is not maintainable. 27. Moreover, as alleged, petitioner had entered into agreement to sale of his share in land of Khasra NO.201 & 202 after accepting sale consideration from the housing society, which too he has admitted in his affidavit (Ann.R.11) - copy whereof has been filed by State Govt alongwith reply, deposing that after entering into agreement on 11/05/80, he had handed over possession of the land in dispute to Hathroi Grih Nirman Sahakar Samiti and thus has no relation or interest over the land; and amount of compensation should also be paid to the society. These facts clearly depict that petitioner loose his, right, title & interest in the land after having entered into agreement to sale executed in favour of the society. 28. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******