Order Seeking quashing of order dated 27.11.2012 in Land Acquisition Case No. 09/ 2008-09 and for a direction upon the Deputy Collector, Ranchi not to release the compensation to the respondent no. 4, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are summarized thus; For extension of Birsa Munda Airport by the Airport Authority of India about 125 decimals of land was sought to be acquired by the State Government and accordingly, notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published. A notice dated 25.07.2011 was issued from the office of Deputy Collector, Ranchi whereby, the awardees were directed to receive compensation amount on 10.08.2011 by producing documentary evidence, if the original awardee has died. The petitioner and others being son of one Ramavtar Verma filed their objection seeking payment of compensation with respect to land comprised in R.S. Plot No. 1294, Khata No. 68 in Mouza Hethu, Thana No. 298 District, Ranchi. In the Revisional Survey Records of Rights, Plot No. 1294 within Khata No. 68 in Mouza Hethu, total area of 125 decimals is recorded in the name of Raghunath Ram, Kolha Ram, Shahdeo Ram and Bodho Ram, all sons of Ramdin Ram and they jointly having one share and one Nandkeshwar Ram son of Khetu Ram having one share. There was an oral partition amongst cosharers and they remained in possession of their respective shares. The said Nandkeshwar Ram died leaving behind two sons namely, Janki Ram and Ganesh Ram. The petitioner is one of the legal representatives and successors of Ganesh Ram being his grandson whereas, the respondent no. 4 belongs to branch of Janki Ram. The petitioner claimed payment of compensation with respect to the land admeasuring 62.5 decimals under Plot No. 1294 within Khata No. 68 in Mouza Hethu, Ranchi. Vide order dated 27.11.2012 the objection of the petitioner has been rejected and the amount of compensation is directed to be given to the respondent no. 4 Laxmi Ram. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi affirming that 0.88 acres of land comprised in Thana No. 298, Khata No. 68, Plot No. 1294, Mouza Hethu, Ranchi has been acquired vide L.A. Case No. 09/2008/09. Award No. 17 was prepared in the name of the respondent no. 4. 4 Laxmi Ram. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi affirming that 0.88 acres of land comprised in Thana No. 298, Khata No. 68, Plot No. 1294, Mouza Hethu, Ranchi has been acquired vide L.A. Case No. 09/2008/09. Award No. 17 was prepared in the name of the respondent no. 4. Initially one Sushila Devi and Shalini Devi filed objection petition claiming themselves to be the owner of the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28.07.2011 executed by the legal heirs and successors of Ganesh Ram. Since, the transactions were made long after the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi rejected their objection petition claiming compensation vide order dated 27.11.2012. The petitioner also filed objection petition on 08.12.2012 and in this regard objection was filed by other legal heirs of Ramavtar Verma. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to enquire into the matter who submitted a report dated 05.02.2012. The report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi discloses that in the year, 1934 itself the land belonging to Nandkeshwar Ram was partitioned among his sons namely, Janki Ram and Ganesh Ram and accordingly, land in question under Plot No. 1294 was allotted in favour of Janki Ram. The different sale deeds executed between the year, 1970-2007 by the legal heirs and successors of the said Ganesh Ram indicate that they accepted the partition between Ganesh Ram and Janki Ram. Awarded amount of Rs. 74,00,199.00/for acquisition of land in question has been paid to the respondent no. 4 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, it is a matter of record that the petitioner is the legal heir and successor of one Ganesh Ram being his grandson, who held half share in the properties of Nandkeshwar Ram and this fact has been accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer however, order for compensation to the respondent no. 4 has been erroneously passed. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has thus been wrongly rejected on the ground that the petitioner and others have failed to produce any evidence of jointness of the property. 6. 4 has been erroneously passed. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has thus been wrongly rejected on the ground that the petitioner and others have failed to produce any evidence of jointness of the property. 6. As against the above, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned G.A submits that the objection of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 27.11.2012 however, on the objection petition of the petitioner dated 08.12.2012 the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi sought enquiry report from the Sub-Divisional Officer, and in the report also it has been found that the respondent no. 4 is the original claimant of the land in question and therefore, the compensation amount has been ordered to be paid to the respondent no. 4. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the materials brought on record, it appears that before the preparation of award, the petitioner or any other legal heir and successor of Ganesh Ram did not make any objection or raise a claim for compensation. Only after notice dated 25.07.2011 was issued for receiving the amount of compensation, one Sushila Devi and Shalini Devi filed objection claiming compensation. The petitioner also filed objection dated 08.12.2012 and thereafter other legal heirs and successors of the said Ganesh Ram filed objections. The learned District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi has found that under well thought plan the land was transferred fraudulently in favour of Sushila Devi and Shalini Devi after the land was acquired. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence with respect to his claim for compensation and from the materials produced before the Land Acquisition Officer, it has been found that the compensation with respect to 0.88 acres of land should be awarded to the respondent no. 4 and not to the petitioner or any other legal heir of the said Ganesh Ram. A further enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi also affirms the same. 4 and not to the petitioner or any other legal heir of the said Ganesh Ram. A further enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi also affirms the same. A perusal of report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi affirms that legal heirs of Ganesh Ram were in possession of Plot No. 1261 and Plot No. 1205 and they have sold the land comprised therein and this fact affirms that there was an oral partition in the year, 1934 in terms of which the parties held possession of their respective shares. It is further found that the respondent no. 4 has not claimed the compensation with respect to Plot No. 1260 or 1261 or Plot No. 1205. I am of the opinion that inspite of notice once the petitioner failed to raise any objection prior to preparation of award, the proper course open to the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Land Acquisition Officer on account of conflicting claims. The application filed by the petitioner purportedly under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer who exercises discretionary power under Section 30 of the Act whereas, application under Section 18 of the Act must be referred to Civil Court subject to fulfilling conditions mentioned in Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner inspite of knowledge of the award has failed to approach the District Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The application under Section 30 of the Act filed by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.