Judgment : The petitioner, whose application for her impleadment in O.P.No.80 of 2011 relating to reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was dismissed, filed this Civil Revision Petition, feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to allow her to come on record. I have heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In response to the notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, Smt. Taherunnisa-sister of respondent No.2, filed a claim petition wherein it is stated that she has filed O.S.No.1920 of 2007 in the Court of the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition and that she is also entitled to compensation in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer of respondent No.1 Corporation passed award No.A/401 of 2007 dated 14.08.2008 wherein he has stated that as there are claims and counter claims and the dispute is subjudice, the compensation amount could not be awarded or apportioned and that, therefore, he has decided to refer the dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. Accordingly, the dispute was referred which was registered as O.P.No.80 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1523 of 2011 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking her impleadment in the O.P. by stating that she is one of the sisters of respondent No.2 and that, therefore, she is also entitled to a share in the compensation amount. Similarly, her sister Taherunnisa filed I.A.No.52 of 2011 and another sister Gousiaunnisa also filed I.A.No.1279 of 2011. By common order dated 01.02.2012, the lower Court has dismissed all these applications. Feeling aggrieved by the same, of the three applicants for impleadment, only Meharunnisa filed the present civil revision petition. The lower Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ambey Devi Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (9) SCC 84 and also on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and another Vs. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan and others 1993 (3) ALT 246 (D.B.) in holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to implead the parties who are un-connected with the reference proceedings. State of Bihar 1996 (9) SCC 84 and also on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and another Vs. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan and others 1993 (3) ALT 246 (D.B.) in holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to implead the parties who are un-connected with the reference proceedings. As regards this legal position, there is no quarrel on it, because the reference Court exercises a limited jurisdiction, as it derives its jurisdiction from the terms of reference. Even according to the petitioner, it is only Taherunnisa-the applicant in I.A.No.52 of 2011 who filed her claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. Even though a copy of the O.P. is not filed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has impleaded only respondent No.2 i.e., Gulam Mahboob Junaidi as a party to the reference proceedings. This, in my opinion, is misconceived, because the reference under Section 30 of the Act is made only when there are rival claims. A dispute referred under Section 30 of the Act cannot be decided by the civil Court, unless the rival claimants are present before it. Therefore, at least Taherunnisa, who made her claim before the Land Acquisition Officer, ought to have been shown as a party alongside Gulam Mahboob Junaidi, but Taherunnisa is not before this Court. The petitioner herein has admittedly not made her claim. Therefore, she cannot claim to come on record before the lower Court in the absence of any claim. To the extent of rejecting I.A.No.1523 of 2011 filed by the petitioner, the order of the lower Court cannot be found fault with. This order, however, shall not be understood as this Court confirming the order of the lower Court in respect of I.A.No.52 of 2011 filed by Taherunnisa. Before parting with this case, it needs to be observed that if the lower Court finds that Gulam Mehboob Junaidi alone is the private party before it in O.P.No.80 of 2011, it shall take steps to see that at least Taherunnisa, whose claim was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, is impleaded by the Land Acquisition Officer before deciding the O.P. on merits. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.1964 and 3343 of 2012 filed by the petitioner are disposed of as infructuous.