JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. H. Deb, learned Asstt. S.G. appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment dated 13.12.2013 delivered in L.A.(Ref)120 of 2013. The said reference was disposed of by the said judgment dated 13.12.2013 along with some other references. 3. There is no dispute that the land which has been acquired is jointly won by Smti. Bakul Bala Som and her husband namely Sri Alok Som. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has contended that the objection was filed both by Alok Som and Bakul Bala Som jointly on 15.06.2013. Alok Som and Bakul Bala Som submitted the objection and urged the Land Acquisition Collector to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge for determination of just land value. Accordingly, the reference was made and the case was decided by observing that in L.A.(Ref.)120 of 2013, the claimant Alok Som had only filed the objection before the Land Acquisition Collector with a prayer to refer the matter on the ground of inadequate compensation. But before the court of the Land Acquisition Judge both Alok Som and his wife Smt. Bakul Bala Som jointly submitted the claim petition. Mr. H. Deb, learned Astt. S.G. has submitted that she is not entitled to get the compensation in the enhanced rate. The petitioner Alok Som alone will get the compensation of his share in the enhanced rate. The rate was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per kani from Rs.35,000/- per kani as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Judge severed the proceeding and dismissed her claim. 4. Being aggrieved by the said finding, the co-sharer of the acquired land namely Bakul Bala Som has filed this appeal as her claim for the enhanced compensation has been denied by the Land Acquisition Judge. This court has scrutinized the records and finds that only Alok Som, the other co-sharer of the acquired land had raised the objection against the award and clamored for the higher rate at least at Rs.2,00,000/-, per kani meaning Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. 5. Mr. This court has scrutinized the records and finds that only Alok Som, the other co-sharer of the acquired land had raised the objection against the award and clamored for the higher rate at least at Rs.2,00,000/-, per kani meaning Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. 5. Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the husband raised the objection and reaped the benefit but that did not happen in the same way for the present appellant who is the wife of Sri Alok Som. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has strenuously contended that the application for reference was filed for the entire land measuring 0.52 acre which is still an un-partitioned land. Thus denial of the higher compensation is exceptionally illegal and liable to be interfered with. 6. However, Mr. H. Deb, learned Asstt. S.G. appearing for the respondents has submitted that unless the objection as is required to be raised by the person whose land has been acquired and as contemplated under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, there cannot be any reference. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act clearly provides as under : “Any person interested and has not accepted the award may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.” Furthermore, the appellant shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. 7. Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act has some relevance in respect of advancing any objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that : “(1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that : “(1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted. Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount : Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18.” There is no assertion by the present appellant that such objection was filed by the present appellant. May be in the general parlance the husband usually makes the supervision of the case. But unless he is legally authorized, he cannot be either termed as the representative nor as the authorized agent under Order 3 Rule 2 of the CPC. In view of this, this court does not find any merit in this appeal. 8. However, it is made clear that the appellant herein may also make an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. If any delay has occurred that be condoned from the date of judgment i.e. 13.12.2013 till this date i.e.01.08.2013 as this court discount the said delay. But this is not the proper forum in strict sense to challenge such order. Thus, from today, the limitation for filing the application for enhancing the award in terms of the judgment shall start. If such application in tune with Section 28A of the LA Act is made for giving the benefits of the judgment dated 13.12.2013 the Land Acquisition Collector shall consider such application and pass the appropriate order as expeditiously as possible. In terms of the above, this appeal stands disposed of.