JUDGMENT : J.P. Gupta, J. This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 19.3.2012 passed by III Additional District Judge, Satna in MJC No. 64/95 arising out of Reference Application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for apportionment of the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer by the award dated 5.6.1001 to the claimant to the extend of ?rd share in stead of ?rd share. 2. In brief, the relevant fact of the case are that the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 1275 area 0.287 hectare, Survey No. 1276 area 0.311 hectare, Survey No. 1277 area 0.1981 hectare situated at village Kandwa tahsil Rampur Baghelan district Satna were acquired on behalf of the M.P. State by the Collector, Satna and as per the provision of the Act compensation of the acquired land was determined for Rs. 1,29,442.67 by award dated 5.6.1991. 3. At the time of acquisition, Bansidhar, Shiv Balak and Anjani Prasad were recorded the owners of the land, therefore, the award was passed in favour of all of them. There was a dispute amongst them about the apportionment of the compensation amount hence, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted this dispute to the District Judge, Satna as a reference for apportionment of the compensation amount. 4. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the acquired land was the property of the joint ownership of Shivhsran, Shiv Balak and Anjani Prasad. The appellants are legal representatives of Anjani Prasad. Shivsharan had a daughter Bhoori, who has also expired and Bansidhar Respondent No. 3 is son of Bhoori. Shiv Balak is also dead, he had three daughters namely Tagasia, Buddhi and Narbadia (Respondent No. 1 a, b and c). It is also stated that the respondent No. 4 being legal representatives of Shiv Balak released their share in the aforesaid land in favour of the appellants and with that effect they have filed affidavit before the Naib Tahsildar, Rampur Baghelan, district Satna and the same passed and order on 28.10.1992 by which the present appellants were declared to be the owner of ?rd share of the aforesaid property and their name was mutated in the revenue record and other records respectively. But the learned Reference Court by ignoring the aforesaid facts, documents and evidence on record wrongly passed the impugned order for apportionment of only ?rd share of the compensation amount, hence, the impugned order be modified as claimed by the appellants. 5. In this matter the respondent No. 1 and 2 are formal parties. None was present on behalf of them. On behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4, it is stated that the impugned judgment regarding apportionment of the compensation is correct and appropriate and no interference is required, as the Tahsildar has no right to deprive the rightful owner of the land to claim the ownership on the property on the basis of affidavit, hence, in the eye of law, order passed by the Tahsildar is non-est and cannot be taken into consideration to deprive the right to get compensation on acquisition of land of their share, hence, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. In this appeal a short question involved is whether the appellants have a legal right to get compensation of the land of share of respondent No. 4 on the basis of affidavit given by them before the Naib Tahsildar, who declared the appellants the owner of the land of share of the respondent No. 4? 7. On perusal of record, it is found that the appellants have submitted a certified copy of the order dated 28.10.1992 Ex. D-3 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Rampur Baghelan in Revenue Case No. 105A/6/85-86. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that it is passed behind the respondent No. 4 as they are not party in the case and on the basis of their affidavit and the affidavit of their mother submitted by Ramsharan Appellant No. 1 the share of Shiv Balak was deemed to be transferred in favour of appellants and recorded their name on the share of Shiv Balak. This order is nonest in the eye of law as under the Transfer of Property Act, gift can be made by the owner of the land by only Registered deed not by oral expression. Therefore, Tehsildar has no right to consider the land transferred orally and recorded appellant's name as the owner of the land on the share of the Shivbalak, therefore, learned lower Court has not committed any error by ignoring the aforesaid document. Therefore, Tehsildar has no right to consider the land transferred orally and recorded appellant's name as the owner of the land on the share of the Shivbalak, therefore, learned lower Court has not committed any error by ignoring the aforesaid document. Apart from it, there is no other document which may be considered to establish the fact that the appellants are also entitled to get the share of Shiv Balak in accordance with law. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal has no substance as the apportionment of the compensation amount made by the Land Acquisition Officer was rightly confirmed by the learned lower Court. Hence, this Court also affirms the aforesaid finding of learned Reference Court. 9. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.