Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1075 (KER)

Hari Hara Nandanan v. Suresh Ezhuvath

2014-12-19

P.BHAVADASAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. Can a third party, who did not have notice of the acquisition proceedings, and, who did not participate in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, seek to come on record in a reference under Sections 18 and 31(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act? This is the sole question that arises for consideration in these cases. 2. C.R.P. 514 of 2014 is directed against the order in l.A. 1493of 2014 in L.A.R. No. 35 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Ottapalam. C.R.P. 515 of 2014 is against the order in LA. 1686 of 2014 in L.A.R. No. 17 of 2012 before the same court. These two cases arise out of a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. C.R.P. 563 of 2014 arises out of the order in LA. 1684 of 2014 in L.A.R. No. 32 of 2012 and O.P.(QNo. 2025 of 2014 arises out of the order in LA. 1681 of 2014 in L.A.R. No. 38 of 2012. These two cases arises out of a reference under Section 1 8 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are as follows: The parents of the petitioners in these petitions owned about 48 acres of rubber plantation in Lakkidi Peroor 1 Village of Ottappalam Taluk comprised in Sy. Nos. 4/6 and 4/7. Government of Kerala as per G.O.(Rt) No. 480/2009/ID dated 18.4.2009 granted sanction to acquire an extent of 103.60 acres of land in Ottappallam, Lakkidi Peroor 1 Village for setting up an Industrial Park for Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development (hereinafter referred to as KINFRA), Palakkad. Section 4(1) notification was issued by the State Government. 4. The mother of the petitioners expired on 17.5.2004 and their father expired on 29.9.2009. Before the death of their father, an extent of 38.09 acres of land was transferred to respondents 1 and 2 and others as per seven documents of 2008 of SRO, Ottappalam. Petitioner’s mother had executed a Will bequeathing 9 acres and 10 cents of rubber estate along with other properties to the first petitioner. Portion of the property thus obtained by testamentary acquisition was also transferred to respondents 1 and 2 and an extent of 5.91 acres remained with the petitioners. That property was also included in the notification for acquisition. Petitioner’s mother had executed a Will bequeathing 9 acres and 10 cents of rubber estate along with other properties to the first petitioner. Portion of the property thus obtained by testamentary acquisition was also transferred to respondents 1 and 2 and an extent of 5.91 acres remained with the petitioners. That property was also included in the notification for acquisition. The petitioners were not stationed at Ottappalam and they were unaware of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The mother of the petitioners had obtained patta in respect of the property bequeathed to the first petitioner and basic tax was being paid by her uncle. 5. In respect of 0.1674 and 0.1913 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 554 part and 555 part, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 12.12.2011, but none was found eligible to receive the compensation. Accordingly, a reference was made as contemplated under Section 31of the Land Acquisition Act showing respondents 1 and 2 alone are the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer passed another award on 26.6.2012 in respect of an extent of 1.9857 hectares as well as 0.0445 hectares comprised in Sy. No. 553/2 part and that too was deposited before the court concerned showing respondents 1 and 2 as claimants. The reference under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act were numbered as L.A.R. 17 of 2012 and L.A.R. 35 of 2012 whereas reference under Section 18 of the Act were numbered as L.A.R. 38 of 2012 and L.A.R. No. 32 of 2012 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ottappalam. 6. The petitioners were totally in the dark about the proceedings and respondents 1 and 2 preferred claim petitions before the reference court. Later, accidentally the first petitioner came to know about the proceedings and he then applied to the Land Acquisition Officer concerned for release of the amounts due in respect of the land acquired which belonged to and was in the possession of the first petitioner. 7. Coming to know about the fact that reference court had tentatively decided that 5.9 acres of land belonged to respondents 1 and 2and they were in occupation of the same and had decided to release the amount deposited in court, the petitioners filed impleading petitions under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. all the reference cases. 7. Coming to know about the fact that reference court had tentatively decided that 5.9 acres of land belonged to respondents 1 and 2and they were in occupation of the same and had decided to release the amount deposited in court, the petitioners filed impleading petitions under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. all the reference cases. The Land Acquisition Officer before whom the petitioners staked their claims in respect of the award amount in relation to the property which belonged to them, the Land Acquisition officer informed them that the matter had already been referred to the Court and they may seek their remedy from the court concerned. 8. However, the reference court by order dated 5.8.2014 dismissed all the impleading petitions holding that third partieswere not entitled to come on record as there was no reference against them and the court has no power to implead them. The said order is under challenge. 9. Dr. George Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the court below has erred both on facts arid in law in dismissing the petitions. Even assuming that the petitioners could not be impleaded in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, there is no such embargo as far as reference under Section 31 is concerned. Reference under Section 31 is made when there is dispute as regards the entitlement of the persons for compensation amount and the Land Acquisition Officer is unable to decide as to who is entitled to get the amount. The scope and ambit of an enquiry in a reference under Section 31 is wider and going by Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the reference court is certainly entitled to invoke the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court can implead third parties if the court is satisfied that their rights are also affected. The mere fact that petitioners 1 and 2 did not participate in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer will not denude them of the right to get compensation if in fact the property belonged to them was the subject matter of acquisition. The scheme of the Act is such that compensation that is awarded is intended to be received by the real owners of the property. The scheme of the Act is such that compensation that is awarded is intended to be received by the real owners of the property. A reading of the provision will show that it is not the intention of the Act that merely because the real owner of the property and the person who is entitled to compensation has not participated in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, he should be precluded from receiving the compensation amount. While it may be possible to say that the scope of enquiry in a reference under Section 18 is restricted and confined to the person who sought reference under Section 18, learned counsel referred to Ext.P5 in the Original Petition and pointed out that as per clause 4 at page 8 of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is specifically mentioned that in respect of 0.1674 hectares of land and comprised in Sy. No. 554 part and 0.1913 hectares of land comprised in Sy. No. 555 part, no person has come forward with title deeds or possession certificate to claim the amount. It is further stated in the award that since no person who is competent to alienate the land has come forward, the amount was directed to be deposited in court as per Section 31(2) of the Act. Similarly, in Ext.P6, reference is made to two parcels of land, namely, 1.9857 hectares and 0.0445 hectares of land comprised in Sy. No.553/2 part in relation to which also none had come forward with a claim for compensation amount. 10. In support of the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to participate in a reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Charan Das v. State of H.P. ( AIR 2009 SC 1 ), Repaka Bhyravamurthy v.Muppidi Venkataraju (AIR 2002 Andhra Pradesh 77) and Niranjan Singh v. Amar Singh (AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 250). 11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. T. Sethumadhavan, appearing for the contesting respondents pointed out that it is well settled by now that neither in a reference under Section 18 nor in a reference under Section 31(2) of the Act, the persons who were not parties to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer can participate in the proceedings before the Reference Court. T. Sethumadhavan, appearing for the contesting respondents pointed out that it is well settled by now that neither in a reference under Section 18 nor in a reference under Section 31(2) of the Act, the persons who were not parties to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer can participate in the proceedings before the Reference Court. Unless there is a reference by the Land Acquisition Officer vis-a-vis a person, the said person cannot participate in the proceedings. Law does not permit anybody to come and get himself impleaded in a reference under Sections 18 and 31(2) of the Act and stake his claim for compensation. Learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Ajjam Linganna v. Land Acquisition Officer (2002 KHC 1438) and George P. Cherukoth v. State of Kerala ( 2014 (1)KHC 402 ) in support of hiscontention. 12. Before entering into a discussion regarding the debated question, it will be useful to refer to the various portions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Exts.P5 and P9. It has already been stated that in respect of two items of land covered by each of these exhibits, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that no one has established his title or possession over those properties and therefore, the compensation has not been disbursed. To be more precise, the order reads as follows: “(4) Sy. No. 554 pt - 0.1674 purayidam 555 pt - 0.1913 purayidam In the case of above lands no person has come forward with any claim in the form of title deeds or possession certificate at any time till this date. Though this lands lie either within or adjacent to the lands owned and possessed by (1) Sri.Suresh Ezhuvath, Cheriya Ezhuvath Veedu, Chittur (2) Smt. Lalitha Amma, Cheriya Ezhuvath Veedu, Chittur (3) C.P. Kalliyani, Guru Nivas, Chittur, they have not produced any document or possession certificate in respect of these lands. No person could also be ascertained as the title holder of the above lands in our local enquiry and perusal of concerned documents in the Village office -Lakkidi Perur-I. As per section 31(2) of LA Act, if there be no person competent to alienate the land, the amount may be deposited in the court. In the circumstances the compensation in respect of 0.1674 H of dry land comprised in Sy. No. 554 pt. In the circumstances the compensation in respect of 0.1674 H of dry land comprised in Sy. No. 554 pt. And 0.191 3 H of dry land comprised in Sy. No. 555 pt is deposited in the Sub Court, Ottappalam u/s 31(2) of LA Act impleading State Government and claimants (1) Suresh Ezhuvath, Cheriya Ezhuvath Veedu, Chittur, (2) Lalitha Amma, Cheriya Ezhuvath Veedu, Chittur, (3) C.P. Kalliyani, Guru Nivas, Chittur.” “(9) Sy. No. 53/2pt 1.9857 H Purayidam 0.0445 H Rock In the case of above lands no person has come forward with any claim in the form of title deeds or possession certificate at any time till this date. Though this lands lie either within or adjacent to the lands owned and possessed by (1) Sri.Suresh Ezhuvath, Cheriya Ezhuvath Veedu, Chittur (2) C.P. Kalliyani, Guru Nivas, Chittur, they have not produced any document or possession certificate in respect of these lands. No person could also be ascertained as the title holder of the above lands in our local enquiry and perusal of concerned documents in the Village office -Lakkidi Perur-I. As per section 31(2) of LA Act, if there be no person competent to alienate the land, the amount may be deposited in the Sub Court, Ottapalam. In the circumstances the compensation of Rs.76,17,894/- of 1.9857 H of dry land and 0.0445 Hectors of rock comprised in Sy. No. 553/2 pt is deposited in the Sub Court, Ottapalam u/s 31(2) of LA Act impleading (1) State Government (2) Suresh Ezhuvath, Cheriya Ezhuvath Veedu, Chittur, (3) C.P. Kalliyani, Guru Nivas, Chittur as claimants. The compensation amount will be released to the claimants, if any, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Court.” 13. It is not in dispute that among the persons made mention of by the Land Acquisition Officer in the above two references, the petitioners’ names do’not appear. It is also not in dispute that they have not participated inthe proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is seen from Ext.P11 produced in the Original Petition that the first petitioner made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer staking his claim for the compensation amount due for the parcels of land ownerd and possessed by him and he was furnished with Ext.P12 reply by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is seen from Ext.P11 produced in the Original Petition that the first petitioner made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer staking his claim for the compensation amount due for the parcels of land ownerd and possessed by him and he was furnished with Ext.P12 reply by the Land Acquisition Officer. By Ext.P12, the Land Acquisition Officer informed the first petitioner that he had sought a reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the amount is lying in deposit before court and the petitioner may approach the said court for redressal of his grievances The petitioners would say that it was in pursuance thereto that they had applied to the reference court for getting themselves impleaded. 14. It will be useful at this point of time to understand the scheme of the Act. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with the issuance of notification for acquisition. Section 9 of the Act stipulates issuance of notice to persons interested. Section 11 of the Act deals with the power to conduct an enquiry and pass an award. Section 18 of the Act enables the persons entitled to receive the award and if they are aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded, they may apply in writing to refer the matter to the court concerned. Section 18 of the Act stipulates that the Land Acquisition Officer shall then refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Court stating the grounds for reference. From a reading of Section 18 of the Act, it can be seen that as per the said provision, there is no adjudication of entitlement of a person to receive the amount. In a case falling under Section 18 of the Act, the person entitled to receive the amount is ascertainable. Section 18 of the Act in fact only deals with inadequacy of compensations and does not deal With the dispute of entitlement to compensation. It is by now Well settled that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, a third party had no locus standi and cannot seek to get himself impleaded. 15. While Section 18 of the Act deals with reference in relation to inadequacy of compensation, Section 30 of the Act deals with a dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation. It is by now Well settled that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, a third party had no locus standi and cannot seek to get himself impleaded. 15. While Section 18 of the Act deals with reference in relation to inadequacy of compensation, Section 30 of the Act deals with a dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation. Section 11 of the Act, to certain extent obliges the Collector to enquire into the interest of each person in the land acquired. It appears that the apportionment depends upon the right and interest involved and if there is dispute regarding the same, the Collector has to refer the matter to the court. The quantum of compensation is proportionate to the interest in the land which is a matter for determination by the court. While Section 18 of the Act envisages an application seeking reference by the aggrieved person, a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act is an act done by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector as the case may be when there is dispute regarding the person who is entitled to receive the amount or none of the persons are able to establish their claims for the compensation amount. A reading of Section 31 of the Act shows that even when a person receives amount from the reference court, he is bound to hold it in trust for the person who is in law entitled to receive the amount. This would indicate that disbursement of the amount deposited before court in favour of a person does not involve a final adjudication regarding the right to receive the compensation. If some other person is able to establish through the proceedings known to law that he is the person actually entitled to receive the compensation, then the person who received the compensation under Section 31(2) will be bound in law to hand over the amount to the former person. 16. It will not be out of place here to refer to the provision as to who is an ‘interested person’. 16. It will not be out of place here to refer to the provision as to who is an ‘interested person’. The term is defined in Section 3(b) of the Act as follows: “3(b) 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.” While under Section 18 of the Act, the person interested, who is not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, is to seek reference of the matter and the person interested had no role to play in a reference under Section 30 or Section 31 of the Act. Those are references made by the Land Acquisition Officer or District Collector when there is dispute regarding the person who is entitled to receive the amount or the Land Acquisition Officer or District Collector as the case may be unable to determine as to who is entitled to receive the compensation. In the case of a reference made to the Land Acquisition Court, the provisions of C.P.C are made applicable by virtue of Section 53 of the Act. One may now refer to the decisions relied on by either side. 17. In the decision reported in Charan Dass v. State of H.P. (AIR 2009 Himachal Pradesh 1), it was held as follows: “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. 25. Reference under Section 30 can, however, be sought by other persons which may include the persons interested, who were neither present before the Land Acquisition Collector nor have been served with notice of the filing of the award. 25. Reference under Section 30 can, however, be sought by other persons which may include the persons interested, who were neither present before the Land Acquisition Collector nor have been served with notice of the filing of the award. Their right in the acquired property may be a pre-existing right or a right which may have accrued after making of the award. 26. It is also apparent from the aforesaid judgments that whereas the Collector is bound to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. This discretion, however, has to be in accordance with the well established norms and power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.” 18. In the decision reported in Niranjan Singh v. Amar Singh (AIR 1984 Punjab & Haryana 250) it was held as follows: “4. Proceedings before the Court on a reference made by the Collector under Section 30 are of a special nature. The Court can take cognizance of the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation of the acquired land, only on a reference and the enquiry is confined to a dispute between certain parties. The Court cannot enlarge its scope by impleading others as parties. The persons who had not appeared before the Collector and staked any claim to compensation for the land in dispute and have not raised any grievance as to the apportionment of compensation in the award of the Collector, cannot come forward to join issue before the Court adjudicating on the reference.” 19. In the decision reported in Repaka Bhyravamurthy v. Muppidi Venkataraju (AIR 2002 Andhra Pradesh 77) it was held as follows: “55. A person may not be entitled to be impleaded as a party only for the purpose of enhancement of compensation, but if any other question arises which touches the issue of his entitlement or apportionment to the amount of compensation, the same may be considered by reason of an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C.” 20. The words ‘person interested’ was construed in the decision reported in Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v.Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)( (1995) 1 SCC 221 ) Wherein it was held as follows: “5. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant for whose benefit the land is acquired is a “person interested” within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. The words ‘person interested’ was construed in the decision reported in Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v.Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)( (1995) 1 SCC 221 ) Wherein it was held as follows: “5. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant for whose benefit the land is acquired is a “person interested” within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. In Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by L.Rs., (1980) 3 SCR 235 : ( AIR 1980 SC 1118 ), Fazal Ali, J., speaking for the Bench of two Judges considered the scope of Section 3(b) and held that (at p. 1120, Para 7 of AIR): “It seems to us that the definition of ‘a person interested’ given in Section 18 (obviously Section 3(b) is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the lands were actually acquired for the purpose of the company and once the land vested in the Government, after acquisition, it stood transferred to the company under the agreement entered into between the company and the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the company had no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. For this purpose, the company could undoubtedly appear and adduce evidence on the question of the quantum of compensation.” (At p. 1121 of AIR), it was concluded that: “Thus the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of ‘person interested’ ‘ must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested even though its stake may be extremely vital? In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested even though its stake may be extremely vital? For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not heard by the Collector or a Court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a Court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person or for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person. We are satisfied that such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the property as also in the compensation to be paid therefor because both these factors concern its future course of action and if decided against him, seriously prejudice his rights.” 21. In the decision reported in S. Palani Velayudham v. Collector( (2009) 10 SCC 664 ), it was held as follows: “7. There is significant difference between “persons known or believed to be interested” and “persons interested”. A “person interested” no doubt would include all persons claiming an interest in the compensation on account of the acquisition of land, including the vested remaindermen. On the other hand, “a person known to be interested” refers to persons whose names are recorded in the revenue records, as persons having an interest in the acquired lands, as the owner, sharer, occupier or holder of any interest. They are entitled to notice. 8...................... 9. Persons are “believed” to be interested in the acquired land, if their names are disclosed to the Collector as persons having an interest in the acquired land (though their names are not entered in the revenue records) either in correspondence or otherwise and whom the Collector believes as having an interest in the acquired lands. 8...................... 9. Persons are “believed” to be interested in the acquired land, if their names are disclosed to the Collector as persons having an interest in the acquired land (though their names are not entered in the revenue records) either in correspondence or otherwise and whom the Collector believes as having an interest in the acquired lands. The question whether a person is believed to be interested in .the acquired land, would depend upon the subjective satisfaction of the Collector.” 22. It is no doubt true that going by the above decisions, the term ‘person interested’ takes in a wide range of persons. It cannot be disputed that if as a matter of fact the petitioners are the owners of the property and were in possession at the relevant time, they are interested persons. To that extent, learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be justified in his submission. 23. Even though the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners seem to suggest that a third party can get himself impleaded or that the court can suo motu implead the party if he feels interested by invoking the inherent powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., the matter stands covered by the decision reported in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan( 2013 (5) SCALE 670 ). In the said decision, it was held as follows: “20. In view of the above, the legal issue involved herein, can be summarised as under: (i) An application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. cannot be filed by a person who was not initially a party to the proceedings. (ii) Inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. can be exercised by the Court to redress only such a grievance, for which no remedy is provided for under the C.P.C.. (iii) In the event that an order has been obtained from the Court by playing fraud upon, it is always open to the Court to recall the said order on the application of the person aggrieved, and such power can also be exercised by the appellate court. (iv) Where the fraud has been committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate such a factual issue, and in such an eventuality, a party has the right to get the said judgment or order set aside, by filing an independent suit. (iv) Where the fraud has been committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate such a factual issue, and in such an eventuality, a party has the right to get the said judgment or order set aside, by filing an independent suit. (v) A person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 of 30 of the Act, 1894, but cannot make anapplication for impleadment or apportionment before the Reference Court.” 24. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision reported in Ajjam Linganna v. Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad(2002 KHC 1438). That was a case in which the reference was under Section 30 and the attempt of athird party to get himself impleaded was declined. In that decision, it was held as follows: “4. In our view, it was not open to the appellants (other than Ajjam Linganna) to have applied directly to the reference court for impleadment and to seek enhancement under S.18 for compensation. The only person for whom some consideration can be shown is Ajjam Linganna who had at least filed an application on 14.9.1993 before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, these appeals preferred by the various appellants except Ajjam Linganna are liable to be set aside inasmuch as it was not open to the reference court to implead the saidappellants in the reference court without their having approached the Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference earlier.” 25. Section 31 of the Act envisages a situation where the person who is actually entitled to the compensation has not been identified nor the person entitled to receive the amount has made a claim or there is dispute among the claimants as to who is entitled to receive the award amount. 26. Going by the scheme of the Act, it does not appear that a person who had not received notice under the acquisition proceedings or who had no knowledge about the proceedings, or who had not participated in the proceedings, or who has substantially interested in the property which is acquired, should be deprived of the compensation for ever. 26. Going by the scheme of the Act, it does not appear that a person who had not received notice under the acquisition proceedings or who had no knowledge about the proceedings, or who had not participated in the proceedings, or who has substantially interested in the property which is acquired, should be deprived of the compensation for ever. That is clear from a reading of Sections 30 and 31 wherein it is mentioned that a person who receives the amount from the reference court could holds it in trust of the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation amount. 27.Section 30 of the Act speaks about the’ dispute as to apportionment. It involves an adjudication as to the right to get the compensation. But in the light of the other provisions of the Act, surely there must be some provision to take care of those persons who had no knowledge about the acquisition proceedings and whose right and interest in the immovable property are affected by the acquisition. As already noticed, there is an indication in this regard in Section 31 of the Act. A reading of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act leaves one in no doubt that title to the property, entitlement to the proportionate share of compensation are not matters to be enquired by the Land Acquisition Officer or District Collect. But it is within the province of the concerned. For reference under Section 30 of the Act, there is no period of limitation. However, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court already referred to, it is difficult to accept that even in a reference under Section 30 of the Act a stranger can come on record for getting himself impleaded in the proceedings or the court can suo motu implead a person. From a reading of the decision of the Apex Court, it would appear that the remedy of the person concerned is to approach the Land Acquisition Officer or the District Collector as the case may be staking their claim and seek a reference of their case also. Even after agitating their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer or the District Collector, and their claim is rejected, they can approach the civil court or such other forum as they are entitled to in law. 28. Even after agitating their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer or the District Collector, and their claim is rejected, they can approach the civil court or such other forum as they are entitled to in law. 28. In the case on hand, the petitioners have approached the land Acquisition Officer by way of Ext.Pl 1 produced in O.P.(C) 2025 of 2014 agitating their claim for compensation in respect of the property. The Land Acquisition Officer replied as per Ext.P12. The Land Acquisition Officer relegated the persons concerned to approach the reference court to which the reference is already made. 29. The question then arises as to whether that would be sufficient to clothe the petitioners with the right to approach the Land Acquisition court and get themselves impleaded. It is clear that Section 30 of the Act contemplates apportionment of whole of the compensation or in part thereof to give rise to a dispute which needs to be referred. That means that there should be indefiniteness in apportionment before the Land Acquisition Officer when he makes a reference under Section 30 of the Act. That would seem to suggest that the reference under Section 30 of the Act is vis a. vis certain persons. It is so discernible from the decision reported in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan ( 2013 (5) SCALE 670 ) wherein it was observed that the person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act. That means that the petitioners herein have to prefer an application before the Land Acquisition Officer or the District Collector seeking reference and then the matter has to be dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector as the case may be in accordance with law. If they feel that the claim of the petitioners also needs to be considered, it is for them to refer the case of the petitioners also to the reference court. 30. The above seems to be the position so far as the reference under Section 30 of the Act is concerned. The question then arises as to the reference under Section 18 of the Act. 30. The above seems to be the position so far as the reference under Section 30 of the Act is concerned. The question then arises as to the reference under Section 18 of the Act. Unless the person who is entitled to receive the compensation amount is first determined, then alone he or she can complain about the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded and seek a reference, i.e., a reference under Section 18 of the Act. There is a prescribed time limit for the same also. 31. The question then arises whether a person, who was not a party to the proceedings by the District Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer, but who in law is entitled to receive the compensation, can be deprived of the benefit under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision reported in Madan v. State of Maharashtra( 2014 (1) KLT 22 ). In the said decision it was held as follows: “A cursory glance of the provisions of Section 18 and 30 of the Act, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the Court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two Sections of the Act operate in entirely different circumstances. While S.18 applies to situations where an apportionment made in the Award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, S.30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the Court under S.30of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the Award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. The other is to relegate the parties the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the Award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under S.18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference under S.30 or in the civil suit, as may be.” Thus, while upholding the order of the court below and finding that there is no merit in the petitions filed before this Court, the right of the petitioners to approach the Land Acquisition Officer or the District Collector seeking reference as envisaged in the decision reported in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishnan ( 2013 (5) SCALE 670 ) and also the decision reported in Madan v. State of Maharasthra ( 2014 (1) KLT 22 ) stands reserved. The Original Petition and the Civil Revision Petitionsare disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.