JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions are off-suit of same land acquisition proceedings in which land of father of petitioners and respondents, was acquired by the Government for RIICO. 2. In Writ petition no. 5003/2010 petitioners have challenged order passed by Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 read with 31 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 making reference in the matter of apportionment of compensation keeping in view the claim made by sisters of petitioners. 3. In Writ Petition No. 2840/2010, same petitioners have challenged order passed by Board of Revenue by which matter has been remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer, which questioned the correctness and validity of mutation made in favour of petitioners alone. 4. Shri R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate for petitioner assisted by Shri Aditya Mathur, argued that sisters have taken their share in compensation of the land in which their names were jointly mutated with petitioners. So far as this land is concerned, it was initially mutated in favour of petitioners. Petitioners were throughout cultivating this land since 1989 and no objection was ever raised by respondents sisters. Learned Land Acquisition Officer was wholly unjustified in making reference on question of apportionment of compensation especially when land was mutated in favour of petitioners alone, namely, the brothers and not the sisters and mother. The sisters had no share or right in the land. 5. In writ petition no. 2840/2010, it is argued that Board of Revenue was wholly unjustified in remanding the matter and interfering with the order passed by Divisional Commissioner which held that sisters had no share in land in dispute. Shri R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for petitioners, argued that petitioners may, pending decision of writ petition or decision of apportionment reference by civil court, distribute the undisputed part of share of compensation which is admitted by respondent sisters to be exclusively payable to petitioners. 6. Per contra, Shri H.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondents, opposed writ petition and submitted that while mother would get ⅓rd of the total share and, according to shariat law, brothers would get double the share of sisters and therefore four parts would be given to brothers whereas sister would get half of one part each. Thus out of total land, while one part would go to mother, three parts to sisters and four parts to brothers. Thus out of total land, while one part would go to mother, three parts to sisters and four parts to brothers. The Divisional Commissioner erroneously decided that sisters had no share in this property and therefore the Board of Revenue after realising the law and subject, made total discussion and remanded the matter to S.D.O. The correctness of the order, deciding the matter solely in favour of petitioners, will have to be now re-decided by the S.D.O., and till it is decided, the petitioners cannot claim benefit of earlier mutation made by S.D.O. It is argued that apportionment reference has rightly been made in view of the facts stated above. It is prayed that if the undisputed portion of share of compensation is paid to petitioners pending decision of apportionment reference, the same may also be paid to sisters and each of the party may be required to furnish solvent security. 7. In facts of case, when already apportionment dispute is pending in civil court, amount of compensation cannot be distributed to parties by way of interim arrangement. However, ends of justice would be met if civil court concerned is directed to invest such amount in FDR in any nationalised Bank for a period of one year which may be renewed after every one year subject to final order that may be passed in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. However, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Land Acquisition Officer making reference because mutation on basis of which claim of petitioners is recommended, has itself been set aside and matter has been remanded to the S.D.O. for re-deciding. I do not find any infirmity in any of impugned orders in either of writ petitions. 8. Both writ petitions are therefore dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******