ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i) That the impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 30.7.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and proceed further in the case. (ii) That respondent may kindly be directed to make inquires with respect to deceased respondents before Reference Court and submit reference for adjudication on merits in time bound manner”. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 30.7.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Reference Petition No. 64 of 2007 is against the law and as a consequence thereof, a situation has arisen that the petitioner and similarly situated persons have been made to wait for the final outcome of the litigation till indefinite period. 3. Respondent passed an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act’) as Award No.1 of 2007 on 23.7.2007. As regards apportionment of compensation, it was held as under :- “Apportionment of compensation The holders of interest in the land will be paid amount of compensation according to their share recorded in the latest jamabandi and also in the column of ownership as per statement No.55 prepared understanding order of the Financial Commissioner. In case any dispute regarding title or interest is raised, the entire amount will be deposited in the Govt. Treasury or in the court as the case may be and will be paid as and when the dispute is settled amicably or decided by the order of the court. In consideration of their relative rights and keeping in view the principal of equity, the amount of compensation of land under tenancy will be paid in equal share to the tenants and the owners.” Subsequently, some dispute as regards to apportionment appears to have arisen and hence, respondent No.1 made reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala vide impugned order dated 30.7.2018 returned the reference Petition to respondent No.1 on account of failure of said respondent to supply the list of legal representative of deceased respondents, despite several opportunities. Noticeably, the reference petition remained pending for almost eleven years before its return. 4. Despite repeated opportunities, respondent has failed to file reply. Noticeably, the reference petition remained pending for almost eleven years before its return. 4. Despite repeated opportunities, respondent has failed to file reply. Since, this Court proposes to dispose of this petition on purely a legal ground, as to legality of the impugned order, the reply on factual side will not otherwise be of much relevance. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 6. The Collector under the Act has jurisdiction under Section 11 thereof to pass an award of compensation in respect of following factors:- “(i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him”. 7. The Collector, while passing Award No. 1 of 2007 dated 23.7.2007 apportioned the compensation in the manner, as noticed above. Be that as it may, the subsequent reference was made to the Court by Collector under Section 30 of the Act and its cognizance was duly taken. Once the reference was made to the Court, it was legally obliged to answer the same in accordance with law. The reference was in respect of the dispute as to apportionment of compensation. Even if some of the parties had died, the learned Court was not precluded from deciding the rights in respect of surviving parties. Adjudication on claims and disputes in respect of apportionment will not result in a joint and inseverable decree. The claim of respective parties as to apportionment could be separately adjudged and the reference could be answered accordingly. 8. In Vengalla Koteswaramma vs. Malampti Suryamba & another 2021 (4) SCC 246 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “44.6 Although the appeals were restored for reconsideration of the High Court but, in the process, the Constitution Bench surveyed the relevant case-law including the aforesaid decision in Nathu Ram’s case and laid down the principles for dealing with such matters; and therein, also underscored the consideration about inconsistent decrees coming into operation in case of proceeding with the appeal even after its abatement qua one of the respondents. The enunciations of the Constitution Bench could be usefully noticed as follows: “34. In the light of the above discussion, we hold: (1) Wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for the purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the court thereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them. (2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees. (3) The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one. (4) The question as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-à-vis the remaining parties would suffer the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees. For that reason, a decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutually self-destructive and that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.” 9. In light of above discussion, the impugned order dated 30.7.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Reference Petition No. 64 of 2007 is quashed and set aside with direction to the Reference Court to answer the reference strictly in accordance with law, after recalling the records from the respondent. Since the matter has already been delayed inordinately, learned Reference Court shall make every endeavour to answer the reference expeditiously and in any case not later than 30.9.2022. 10. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the Reference Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.