JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. The issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether a co-sharer, raising an issue of apportionment of the amount of compensation, can be impleaded as a party after a period of three years of filing of a composite petition by another co-sharer, under the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Undisputedly, Amba Dutt and Rudar Dutt filed the said composite petition seeking (i) enhancement of the amount of compensation so determined by the Collector (Land Acquisition) and (ii) apportionment of the amount received by party respondent Smt. Bimla Devi. Allegedly amount belonging to the reference petitioners and inter alia Medha Brat, Dev Brat and Ratni Devi, successors-in-interest of Jagat Ram (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) was wrongly received by her in excess of her share holding. 3. Such application for impleadment filed by the applicants stands rejected by the Court below vide impugned order dated 7.9.2010, passed in CMA No. 189 of 2010, titled as Medha Brat & others vs. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) & others, for the reason that the share of the owners is distinct and specific and the application having been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, was not maintainable. 4. There is no dispute that the land, jointly owned by the parties herein, stood acquired in terms of common award passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition). It is also not in dispute that the applicants did not seek any reference under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Only during the pendency of the composite Reference Petition and that too after a period of three years, did they file an application for impleadment, specifically pleading that even though benefit of the enhanced compensation, if any, as a co-owner, would enure to them, but however since their interest is joint and indivisible, only for proper adjudication of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, they be impleaded as a party. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in G. H. Grant vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 , has held that the dispute inter se the owners, as to their conflicting claims of money is clearly a dispute required to be referred to and adjudicated under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. 6. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in G. H. Grant vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 , has held that the dispute inter se the owners, as to their conflicting claims of money is clearly a dispute required to be referred to and adjudicated under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. State of Punjab & others, (2003) 1 SCC 526 , has also held that the benefit of enhancement of compensation in a Reference Petition filed under Section 18 of the Act, would also enure to the co-owners. No differential treatment can be accorded to the co-owners in view of the statutory provisions. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & another, (2003) 3 SCC 128 , while drawing comparative difference between the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, has held that even though there is a limitation prescribed for seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, however, no limitation is provided for seeking a reference under Section 30 of the Act. Also reference under Section 18 can be sought only by a “person interested”, whereas, Section 30 does not postulate any such restriction. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A. Viswanatha Pillai & others vs. The Special Tahsildar For Land Acquisition No. IV & others, (1991) 4 SCC 17 , has further held that co-owner is as much as owner of the entire property as sole owner of the property. No co-owner has different right, title and interest in any particular item or portion thereof. On the other hand he has right, title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property. He compositely owns the property and is entitled to receive the compensation pro rata as an owner. 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid exposition of law, one is of the considered view that the court below committed an illegality in dismissing the application. Court below totally lost sight of the fact that the petition so filed was composite in nature and in any case claimants as co-sharers, were otherwise entitled to the benefits of the enhanced amount of compensation, if any. Court below totally lost sight of the fact that the petition so filed was composite in nature and in any case claimants as co-sharers, were otherwise entitled to the benefits of the enhanced amount of compensation, if any. Crucially reference petitioners were themselves seeking redetermination of the amount of compensation, belonging to them as also the applicants, which was wrongly received by party respondent Smt. Bimla Devi. In this backdrop the issue of limitation pales into insignificance. 10. Reliance placed upon the decisions rendered in The State of Bihar vs. Parsuram Prasad Verma, AIR 1977 Patna 78 and Municipality, Nalgonda vs. Hakeem Mohiuddin & others, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 305, by Mr. H. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel, is misconceived in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in G.H. Grant (supra) so relied upon by him. 11. There is nothing on record to establish that interest of the co-owners is distinct. 12. While taking the view in favour of the applicants, I am fortified by the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Patna in Mt. Skalbhaso Kuer Versus Brijendra Singh and others, AIR 1967 Patna 243 as also the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana as reported in Indraj vs. Sham Lal, AIR 1993 Punjab and Haryana 95, wherein it is held that: “11. …… …… The words underlined indicate that the learned Judge was of the opinion that the person who had not pressed for his claim before the Collector could not ask the reference Court to implead him as party to the reference. While making these observations, the learned Judge did not appreciate that no period is prescribed for getting a reference made under Section 30 of the Act. A person who has not appeared in acquisition proceedings before the Collector can raise a dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation or relating to the person whom it is payable and apply to Collector for reference under Section 30 for determination of his right to compensation which may have existed before the award or which may have devolved upon him since the award and there is no limitation for making such an application, meaning thereby that the Collector can make more than one reference relating to apportionment to the Court. If the Collector can make more than one reference, it will be unjust to refuse permission to a party to join as a party to the reference. He may succeed in establishing his right to apportionment or may place the matter before the Court which may enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the question of apportionment of compensation. The learned Judge also did not invite his attention to O. 1, R. 10(2) of the Code, which provision is obviously applicable to the proceedings before the reference Court. These provisions enable the reference Court to add a person as party if his presence is considered necessary or proper for the proper adjudication of the dispute before it. Moreover, as observed in the earlier part of the judgment, the reference under S. 30 of the Act is really in the nature of interpleader suit and if that is so, if person prima facie establishes that he has a right which requires examination, it will be unjust not to implead him as a party to the reference.” … … 13. Section 53 of the Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable, hence the court below ought to have allowed the application. Endeavour ought and should have been to curtail all future litigation, inter se, the “persons interested”. Applicants, in the given facts and circumstances, being absolutely necessary and proper parties were required to be impleaded. The court totally lost sight of the fact that it was dealing with a composite petition and not the one filed only under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Applicants had every right to be impleaded as parties for just decision of the controversy in issue with regard to the apportionment of the amount so determined by the Collector (Land Acquisition) and the additional enhanced amount, if any. Impleadment is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the controversy, which would also avoid multiplicity of litigation, is in the interest of the parties and would definitely meet the ends of justice. 14. As such, petition is allowed and impugned order dated 7.9.2010, passed in CMA No. 189 of 2010, titled as Medha Brat & others vs. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) & others, is quashed and set aside. 14. As such, petition is allowed and impugned order dated 7.9.2010, passed in CMA No. 189 of 2010, titled as Medha Brat & others vs. Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) & others, is quashed and set aside. Application for impleadment so filed by Medha Brat, Dev Brat and Ratni Devi stands allowed and the applicants are also impleaded as petitioners in Land Reference Petition No. 48 of 2009. 15. Since the matter is old, hearing is expedited. Endeavour shall be made to decide the petition within a period of one year. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 20.8.2015. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.