Under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, only disputes referred by the Collector to the Court can be adjudicated upon. A third party cannot claim a right to compensation by moving the District Judge or the Court under Section 30.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against a judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Varanasi, dated 1st Mar. , 1973, declaring the claimants Second Set, i. e. 2 to 5, namely Ram Palat Singh, ram Murti Singh, Ram Dhani Singh, and Gulab Singh, to be entitled to receive the amount of compensation awarded, Rs. 784. 68 paise in question.

( 2 ) THE facts, briefly stated, are these. Certain land of Khata No. 9 was acquired by the Land acquisition Officer, Varanasi, for Moghlabir Tubewell Channel in village Attarsuiya. Pargana qasba Raja, Tehsil and district Varanasi. The compensation awarded was prepared in the name of Baul Singh son of Nandan Singh, on the basis of Khasras and Khataunis. Subsequently, rampalat Singh and others, who were claimant Second Set, appeared and made an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer that they had purchased the acquired land in question, and, as such, were entitled to receive the compensation. Baul Singh was the claimant first Set. These two sets were heard. But, since they did not agree to the apportionment of the amount of compensation, or as to the person to whom the same was payable, the Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the District Judge.

( 3 ) UPON the reference being received, the claimants First Set, namely, Baul Singh, did not appear before the Additional District Judge. The claimants Second Set filed their claims to the compensation.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Additional District Judge, the claimants Third Set preferred a claim setting up their right to receive compensation. The claimants Third Set had not preferred any objection to the collector with respect to their right to receive compensation. The reference under Section 18 by the Collector was only in respect of the dispute between the claimants First Set and Second. The claimants Third Set had been impleaded by the Additional District Judge in the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 5 ) UPON the pleadings, the issue framed was, as to who is entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Addl. District Judge held the claimants Second set to be entitled to get the same. He found that as the claimants First Set had neither appeared nor adduced evidence, he was not entitled to get compensation. The dispute before him was between claimants Second Set and Third Set. As regard the Third Set, they did not put forward any objection or claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. They did not make any application or claim before the Collector, Varanasi for being impleaded as parties to the proposed reference. They had made an application for being impleaded in the reference under Section 30 of the Land acquisition Act.

( 6 ) THE question that arises for decision in this appeal, preferred by the claimants Third Set, was whether their claim for lilting compensation in the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land acquisition Act, was entertainable. The learned Additional District Judge decided the said question against the claimants Third Set. 6a. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under :-

"when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part, thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. "

( 7 ) THE use of word refer in Section 30 is indicative of the meaning that only that dispute which has been referred to by the Collector to the decision of the Court is capable of being adjudicated upon. Such dispute must have arisen as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof before the Collector. If a party does not set up its right to receive compensation, Section 30 cannot be pressed in to service by him for getting his rights decided by moving the District Judge or the Court before which the matter is pending, for being i