Abhinava Upadhya, Jj.— Heard Shri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Coun sel. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 31st August, 2009 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by which the objections filed by the peti tioner dated 8.2.2008 and 13.7.2009 have been rejected. Plot Nos. 147 and 167 of Khata No. 24 and Plot Nos. 240, 284, 297 and 299 of Khata No. 25 were acquired for Yamuna Expressway Industrial De velopment Authority. 3. The father of the objector was owner of 1/3rd share in the land in dis pute. The petitioner filed an objection that after the death of his father he is the owner of 5/24th share, he being the eld est son having been born prior to 1.10.1936. Objector has also filed a suit on 23rd September, 2009 under sections 229-B and 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which is said to be pending. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices to the parties. The respondents who were real brothers of the petitioner filed the objection and submitted that the name of the father of the parties was recorded and at no point of time petitioner claimed any right for his larger share and no objection was filed till declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, hence the objection of the petitioner was barred. It was further submitted that twice consolidation operations have un dertaken in the village. Udai Veer Singh, father of the parties died on 17.10.1993 and after the death of his father, name of all the four brothers including the objec tors were recorded and each has equal share. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the objection of the peti tioner and also refused to refer the dis pute under section 30 of the Land Ac quisition Act. Shri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the petitioner shall get ½ share in the Udai Veer's share of sheer and Khudkast land, the petitioner having born prior to Zamindari Aboli tion. He submitted that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, who were three other brothers shall get lessor share.
Shri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the petitioner shall get ½ share in the Udai Veer's share of sheer and Khudkast land, the petitioner having born prior to Zamindari Aboli tion. He submitted that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, who were three other brothers shall get lessor share. It is fur ther submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was obliged to refer the dispute under section 30, since the bona fide dispute of share was raised. He submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer committed error in not referring the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Omveer Singh and others v. State of U.P. through Collector, Gantambiiddh Nagar and others 2004 97 RD 141 and Arulmighu Lakshminarasim-haswamy Temple v. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 408 . 7. We considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The fact, which have come on the record, makes it clear that the name of the petitioner's father Udai Veer Singh was recorded through out in the Khatauni as co-sharer in the land in dis pute. Father of the petitioner died on 17.10.1993 and thereafter till declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, no kind of objection was filed by the petitioner. After the death of petitioner's father the name of all his four sons were mutated in the revenue record including petitioner and respon dent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Revenue record does not indicate that petitioner was assigned any greater share as compared to his brothers. The objections were filed by the petitioner claiming greater share as compared to his brothers in which reference of suit filed by the petitioner under sections 229-B and 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has also been made. 9. The Special Land Acquisition Officer recorded finding that there is no dispute of title between the parties since names of all the persons i.e. objector and respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are recorded in the revenue records and they are enti tled to get the compensation as per their share disclosed in the revenue records. There being no specific share assigned to the petitioner, all brothers were rightly held to be entitled for equal share. 10.
5, 6 and 7 are recorded in the revenue records and they are enti tled to get the compensation as per their share disclosed in the revenue records. There being no specific share assigned to the petitioner, all brothers were rightly held to be entitled for equal share. 10. The submission of the petitioner further is that the Special Land Acquisi tion Officer was bound to make a refer ence under section 30. There cannot be any dispute that section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act empower the Collector to make a reference to the Civil Court for deciding a dispute pertaining to share or entitlement to receive compen sation. 11. The reference under section 30 cannot be made only on raising an ob jection. The objection raised should dis close a bona fide claim. It has been laid down by this Court in several decisions that the Collector has to exercise his dis cretion while making a reference under section 30. There cannot be any dispute to the preposition laid down in Omveer Singh's case that where there is a dis pute regarding title and apportionment of the compensation a direction is liable to be issued for reference under section 30. But in the present case the peti tioner's name was recorded in the reve nue record along with his brothers and all being recorded in the revenue record were entitle for compensation to the equal share. For claiming his right of higher share petitioner had already in stituted a regular proceeding in a com petent Revenue Court by filing a suit under sections 229-B and 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 12. The judgment which has been relied by petitioner in Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple's case was a case where High Court had de clared the title of petitioner in the writ petition and Division Bench directed the Civil Court to decide the title. The Apex Court in the said context observed that if, there was any dispute as person enti tle to receive compensation necessarily, the amount was to be deposited under section 31 and reference was to be made under section 30. 13. In the present case the names of objector as well as respondents being recorded in the revenue records, they all were entitled for compensation and it was not obligatory for Collector to make a reference under section 30. 14.
13. In the present case the names of objector as well as respondents being recorded in the revenue records, they all were entitled for compensation and it was not obligatory for Collector to make a reference under section 30. 14. Following was laid in para graph 2 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted below:- "On the admitted facts, the ap proach of both the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench in the writ petition and the WA No. 1358 of 1995 indicated in the im pugned order made on 30.1.1996 cannot be sustained. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 4.6.1987 acquiring the land in ques tion for the public purpose. After compliance of the notice under sec tions 9 and 10 of the Act and enquir ing, the award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7.2.1990. The possession thereafter was taken on 30.10.1990. The ques tion, therefore, would be: what would be the proper procedure to be adopted in case of dispute as to the title of the land acquired under the Act? The learned Single Judge de clared title of the petitioner in the writ petition and the division bench directed the Civil Court to decide the title. Both views are obviously erro neous in law. The Land Acquisition Officer has to determine the extent of the land, the persons entitled to com pensation and the compensation to be determined under section 23(1) of the Act. If he finds that there is any dis pute as to the person entitled to re ceive the compensation, necessarily he has to deposit the amount under section 31 of the Act into the Court to which reference would lie. On such a dispute having arisen, he has to make a reference to the Court under section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute be tween the competing persons who set up rival title to the compensation. Under those circumstances, the only legal course open is that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under section 30 to decide the inter se title to receive the compensation either by the appel lant or by the fourth respondent, as the case may be and the Reference Court would decide the matter in ac cordance with law." 15.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that no illegality has been com mitted by Collector in rejecting the objec tion of the petitioner. Collector being fully entitled to distribute compensation on the basis of revenue records has rightly re jected the objection. Petitioner has already instituted a revenue proceeding and he is free to pursue the said proceedings to de termine his rights, if any. 16. Subject to the above observa tions, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. _____________