JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. The controversy involved in both the writ petitions as originated from the L.A. Case No. 01/SDR/2010 whereby the land of the writ petitioner, namely, Sikha Rani Das in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 has admittedly been acquired for industrial growth centre in terms of the declaration No. F. 9(11)-REV/ACQ/VI/09 dated 08.06.2010 is entertained. In W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 the writ petitioner sought for a direction for release of the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector by the order dated 17.11.2011 and for quashing the letter dated 04.05.2012 as issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura whereby it has been communicated to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar/Jirania, West Tripura that payment order so passed by the letter dated 03.05.2012 (Annexure-P.11) is required to be withheld until further clearance from the Land Acquisition Officer. It has been further observed in the said letter that 'in this occasion I would like to inform you that the matter required further re-enquiry through Khayerpur T.K. relating to possession of the occupiers over the land in question as per submission of the 2nd party.' 2. In W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 the writ petitioners, to claim their title having matured by long possession over the acquired land, adverse to the title of the true owner, filed this writ petition for directing the Land Acquisition Collector to make the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication of the claim and the counter-claim over the acquired land. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 contending that they have been in continuous possession since 1955 denying the title of the true owner openly since 1967 in exclusion of all other rights appurtenant to the said land claimed the compensation for title. They also contended that the record of rights has not been properly published and they have filed a Revenue Case No. 351 of 2010 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. In that petition they prayed for correction of the record of right and to record their name as the Jotedar by way of adverse possession. They also contended that the record of rights has not been properly published and they have filed a Revenue Case No. 351 of 2010 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. In that petition they prayed for correction of the record of right and to record their name as the Jotedar by way of adverse possession. They are apprehensive that since a part of the said land has been acquired by the appropriate Government, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012, the respondent No. 3 in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 on the basis of the title would take away the entire compensation. It appears that the Land Acquisition Collector is also in dilemma as he directed for an inspection of the land by the settlement officials and for that reason, the payment of the compensation has been withheld by the said order dated 04.05.2012. 3. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 and for the respondent No. 3 in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 contended with sufficient vehemence that only the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 is entitled to the entire compensation. The said petitioner has also deposited all relevant documents to demonstrate her title on the acquired land. He also contended that some strangers who are not 'interested persons' within the ambit of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have raised certain objections to practice mischief and on their objections the Land Acquisition Collector by withholding the compensation money has been acting in defiance to law. He also contended that there cannot be any ambiguity as regards the purpose of Section 30 which provides that: When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 4. What Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, sought to unfold is that at the time of passing the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Collector decided the title of the acquired land and thereafter on assessing the due compensation passed the award. 4. What Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, sought to unfold is that at the time of passing the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Collector decided the title of the acquired land and thereafter on assessing the due compensation passed the award. The dispute that might be raised in terms of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is regarding the apportionment of the award or who would be entitled to what extent. 5. He also referred a decision in Sharada Devi v. State of Bihar, as reported AIR 2003 SC 942 where the Apex Court dwelled upon the characteristic and distinction of the two provisions contemplating the power of the Collector to make reference as provided in Sections 18 and 30 of the Act. In Sharada Devi (supra) the Apex Court held that: Under Section 18 the subject-matter of reference can be a dispute as to anyone or more of the following: (i) as to the measurement of the land, (ii) as to the amount or the quantum of the compensation, (iii) as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable, (iv) as to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Under Section 30, the subject-matter of dispute can be: (i) the apportionment of the amount of compensation or any part thereof, (ii) the persons to whom the amount of compensation or any part thereof is payable. Though the expression employed in Section 18 is 'the amount of compensation' while the expression employed in Section 30 is the amount of compensation or any part thereof, this distinction in legislative drafting is immaterial and insignificant and a dispute as to entitlement or apportionment of part of the compensation would also be covered by Section 18 of the Act on the principle that the whole includes a part too. Thus, at the first blush. It seems that Section 30overlaps Section 18 in part; but as will be seen shortly hereinafter, it is not so. 6. The Apex Court further observed that: But a dispute between the appellant and the State as to their conflicting claims to the compensation money was clearly a dispute which could be referred under Section 30 of the Act to the Court. 6. The Apex Court further observed that: But a dispute between the appellant and the State as to their conflicting claims to the compensation money was clearly a dispute which could be referred under Section 30 of the Act to the Court. There is nothing in Section 30 which excludes a reference to the Court of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of the owner of the land has since the award, devolved. 7. The Apex Court continued to observe that: Under Section 18(1) a reference can be made by Collector only upon an application in writing having been made by (i) any person interested (ii) who has not accepted the award (iii) making application in writing, to the Collector, requiring a reference by the Collector to the Court (iv) for determination of anyone of the four disputes (specified in the provision), and (v) stating the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. For reference under Section 30 no application in writing is required. The prayer may be made orally or in writing or the reference may be made suo motu by the Collector without any one having invited the attention of the Collector for making the reference. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee, further referred a decision of this Court in Man Mohan Das and Anr. v. State of Tripura and Ors., as reported in (2005) 1 GLT 320 where this Court had occasion to appreciate Sharada Devi (supra) and held as under: The next question for decision is in relation to the nature of dispute which can be referred for the adjudication of the Court. To my mind, such dispute has to be real and a substantial dispute and not imagined or made-up dispute. It may be noted that compensation is not payable to all and sundry who comes forward to make such claim. For instance, trespassers or encroacher are held not entitled to compensation. In other words, just by putting forward an objection, it cannot be said that there is a dispute requiring a reference under Section 30. After all, the possibility of some disgruntled elements or busy-bees or interlopers without bona fide cause coming forward to take advantage of this provision to defeat or frustrate or delay the payment of compensation to a genuine land owner cannot be ruled out. 9. After all, the possibility of some disgruntled elements or busy-bees or interlopers without bona fide cause coming forward to take advantage of this provision to defeat or frustrate or delay the payment of compensation to a genuine land owner cannot be ruled out. 9. Finally he referred the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Charan Das v. State of H.P. and Ors., as reported in AIR 2009 HP 1 where the Himachal Pradesh High Court enunciated the law on scrutiny of the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act juxtaposed with the common law resources that: It is apparent that a person who has appeared in the reference proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector or who has received notice of filing of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act can only apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. He cannot apply for a reference under Section 30. As is clear from reading of Section 18 as well as the law laid down, under Section 18, all objections of the interested parties relating to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation amongst persons interested can be referred to the Collector. There is a general misconception that Section 18 relates only to enhancement of compensation and reference for apportionment can only be made under Section 30. This misconception is totally ill-founded. Under Section 18 the persons interested can objection to the award on any of the grounds aforesaid and the Collector is bound to make a reference in case the reference has been sought within the time prescribed by law. (Emphasis Added) 10. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel contended that since the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 and the respondents No. 4 to 21 in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 have taken part in the proceeding leading to the determination of the compensation and drawing up of the award. They cannot claim a reference under Section 30, their remedy lies under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. Mr. They cannot claim a reference under Section 30, their remedy lies under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. Mr. B. Dutta, learned State counsel appearing for the Land Acquisition Collector by virtue of the counter affidavit contended that the Land Acquisition Collector asked for the report from the Tehshilder from Khayerpur Tehshil Kachari and the Tehshiler report dated 26.05.2012 as placed before the Land Acquisition Collector revealed that the land has been recorded in the name of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 but she got even no constructive possession over the land. It has also been reflected in the report dated 26.05.2012 that from another land owner, the Tehshilder has learnt that (i) Chandan Kr. Shil, son of Lt. Lal Mohan Shil, (ii) Sujit Chakraborty, son of Lt. Bidhu Ranjan Chakraborty and (iii) Jogendra Chandra Das, son of Lt. Sonatan Das were the possessor of the land since 45 to 50 years and they had been cultivating the land by growing paddy, vegetable etc. 12. As such the Land Acquisition Collector wanted to take a decision as to whether the respondents No. 4 to 21 are the interested persons as defined in Section 3(b) as under: the expression 'person interested' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land; 13. In terms of the report of the Tehshilder it appears that the private respondents, one of whom is the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 356 of 2012, has asserted their forcible occupation over the acquired land. 14. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. In terms of the report of the Tehshilder it appears that the private respondents, one of whom is the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 356 of 2012, has asserted their forcible occupation over the acquired land. 14. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 and for the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 356 of 2012 contended that from the private respondents one of whom is the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012, have asked for the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the title of the acquired land in terms of law as it is well settled that if by way of hostile possession an occupier could continue beyond 12 years, the title matures on adverse possession in his favour but the Land Acquisition Collector is bereft -of any authority to declare the title. For that purpose it has to be determined by a Court which has been designated and authorised with adequate jurisdiction. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is the source of authority for making reference, for determination of the tile or the proportionate interest over the acquired land. 15. In Sharada Devi (supra) the Apex Court considered that and held that: 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 up to the date of the award and should also not be left without remedy by denying access to Section 30. Viewed from this angle, Sections 18 and 30 would not overlap and would have fields to operate independent of each other. Therefore, Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel quite stoutly contended that the Land Acquisition Collector being bereft of power to make any effective inquiry for determining the title of the acquired land, on which the entitlement of the compensation or the part thereof is substantively dependant. 16. This Court has also appreciated the proceeding files as produced by Mr. B. Dutta, learned State Counsel where the report of the Tehshilder was found available. It appears form the report that during the field enquiry it revealed that the land was under the possession of Chandan Kr. 16. This Court has also appreciated the proceeding files as produced by Mr. B. Dutta, learned State Counsel where the report of the Tehshilder was found available. It appears form the report that during the field enquiry it revealed that the land was under the possession of Chandan Kr. Shil, Sujit Chakraborty and Jogendra Chandra Das since long (40-50) years before the acquisition. Therefore, it cannot be held that the temporary withholding of the money as directed by the Land Acquisition Collector from the Land Acquisition Officer by the order dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure-P.12 to the writ petition) has been passed arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. 17. The law as enunciated in Charan Das (supra) cannot be sustained inasmuch as the Para-23 of Charan Das (supra) cannot be read in isolation from Para-24 of the Charan Das (supra). In Para-24 of the Charan Das (supra), the law has been dilated further as under: 24. The right to make a reference under Section 30 can be exercised suo motu by the Land Acquisition Collector when the proceedings are pending before him. He may assess the compensation or value of the land. Thereafter, he may hold that intricate and complicated question of law relating to the title of the persons interested are involved and refer the matter to the Court under Section 30. However, in case he does not do so, and proceeds to apportion the amount between the parties interested those who were present before him, or who have received notice of the filing of the award must seek a reference within the period of the limitation prescribed under Section 18. Therefore, from the said conjoint reading makes it becomes clear that someone's claims to be the interested persons as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be adjudged how he discharged the onus that he has got right to have a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. By way of adjudication in the designated Civil Court, such dispute can be resolved by the designated Land Acquisition Judge of the competent jurisdiction. By way of adjudication in the designated Civil Court, such dispute can be resolved by the designated Land Acquisition Judge of the competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 cannot be sustained inasmuch the claim of the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 deserve 'adjudication' by way of reference to the Land Acquisition Judge of the competent jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 18. As corollary to such observations as made hereinabove, the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 is dismissed whereas the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 stands allowed. 19. The respondents are directed to make the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of the dispute as raised by the private respondents in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 claiming that they are the 'interested persons' in terms of the provision under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and also to make deposit of the awarded sum in the Court of the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for releasing the said amount after adjudication of the referred dispute to the person who would be determined as competent to receive it. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The record as produced by Mr. B. Dutta, learned State Counsel is returned.