Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Order dated 5.7.2013 of Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of respondent No. 11 to 14, herein in the reference petition of the petitioner herein under Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was allowed, is under challenge in this revision petition. The contesting applicant-respondents claim that on acquisition of their land, they did not receive adequate compensation of their land and were to be paid more compensation. Despite resistance offered by the petitioners herein that applicants were free to prefer their own reference for enhancement of compensation and that they had no stakes in his petition, their prayer was allowed vide the impugned order. 2. Claim of the petitioner is that in his petition under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, the contesting applicants-respondents have no role to play and if any right accrues to them, they have an independent right to claim more compensation as claimed by them and they should pursue their independent remedy. None appeared for the contesting respondents to contest claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent-State, however, has urged that there is no bar for the contesting respondents to set up their independent claim by way of preferring their separate reference petition under Sections18 and 30 of the Act. 3. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties. 4. Perusal of contents of the copy of reference petition (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner reveals that so far as his claim therein is concerned, the respondents clearly have no claim to be adjudicated in this petition. If they have any claim against the State of Haryana or anyone else, remedy for them is to file a separate petition under Sections 18 or 30 of the Act or jointly under both these provisions. In Ramji Gupta and another v. Gopi Krishan Agrawal (D) and others, 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 898, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that a person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, but cannot make an application for impleadment or apportionment before the Reference Court. In view of clear verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order does not stand legal scrutiny. In view of clear verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order does not stand legal scrutiny. Accepting the revision petition, impugned order is set aside and the application for impleadment is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the contesting respondents to take appropriate remedy available to them in law.