The Land Acquisition Officer does not have the right to reject the application for making reference u/s 18 of the LA Act, and both applications of the petitioner could have been dealt with simultaneously.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, Chatrapur in not making reference of his application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the LA Act") to the Civil Court for grant of higher compensation.

2. Grievance of the Petitioner is that his land had been acquired under the provisions of LA Act and award was made u/s 11 of the said Act. There was some dispute regarding title apportionment etc. among the brothers, therefore, Petitioner filed two applications before the Special Land Acquisition Officer - opposite party, one to make reference u/s 18 and another u/s 30 of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer for the reasons best known to him had made a reference of the application u/s 30 without passing any order on the application for reference u/s 18. The application u/s 30 has been adjudicated upon and disposed of by the Civil Court and it has been decided in favour of the Petitioner. However, another application for making reference u/s 18, is still pending. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in fact both the applications ought to have been referred to the Civil Court and they ought to have been decided simultaneously. But the application for apportionment of the compensation u/s 30 of the LA Act has been decided in favour of the Petitioner. This Court should issue direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make reference of the application for adjudication u/s 18 by the Civil Court. Thus, this petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Sanjit Swain, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that this Court may direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the application for making a reference u/s 18 as the said authority has to apply its mind as to whether the application had been filed within the period of limitation and as to whether the award has been accepted without protest.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, ; the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Land Acquisition Collector does not have a power to adjudicate upon the title, right of interest in the property or a right to receive compensation or apportionment thereof. A right to receive compensation is also available to the person who has not filed any claim u/s 9(3) or who has not even been issued any notice under the Act or had not been present before the Court. Thus, such a person has a right u/s 30 of the Act for determination of his right of compensation which may have existed before the award or which may have devolved upon him since the award. Thus, the basic difference in Section 18 and Section 30 proceedings are that u/s 30 a person who is not in picture prior to Section 11 award may also claim his share in the compensation. u/s 18 matters mainly relate as to measurement of the land, as to the amount of compensation, as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable or as to the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested. u/s 30 disputes relatable are (1) any dispute as to the apportionment amount of compensation or any part thereof or (2) a dispute as to the persons to whom amount of compensation or any part thereof is payable. The Court held that if a person is entitled for compensation or part thereof, he has also a right to seek the remedy under the law such as filing a writ petition or civil suit.

7. In Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 371 the Supreme Court considered the issue as to what are the powers of the Land Acquisition Collector while dealing with an application for making a reference under Sections 18 and 30 and held that where there is dispute relating to title and also apportionment of compensation amount, the Land Acquisition Collector must make a refere