The question involved in this Second Appeal is a simple but interesting one whether, when the officer acquiring property under the Land Acquisition Act (Collector) refers a dispute to the decision of the civil Court under section 30 of the Act, firstly, he should be shown as a party respondent in the records of the civil Court, and, secondly, whether, in any event, costs could be awarded against him. Actually in the matter before me, there appears to have been ample justification for the officer to make a reference under section 30, though admittedly there was only one claimant in the case (B.V. Subramania Iyer). The Officer seems to have made the reference because he thought that the title of the claimant was not clearly established by the documentary evidence before him, and that he could not decide upon that evidence, whether the claimant was the true and only person entitled to the compensation amount. The justification I am referring to is that, when the matter came up before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, he actually held that the evidence in favour of the title of the claimant was not satisfactory, and ordered “the compensation amount will therefore lie