Sudhir Narain, J.

1. The present wrist petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to make a reference to the District Judge, under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts in brief are that plot no. 631, area 4 bigha 18 biswansi, situate in village Tappa Khurd, Tehsil ;and district Firozabad, was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Act, for the purpose of Navin Mandi Samiti and the State Government had taken possession of the land under section 17 of the Act. Har Prasad, respondent no. 4, was tenure holder of this plot and an award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no. 2, in his favour.

The petitioner claims that he entered into an agreement with Har Prasad on 19th August 1988 to purchase the right to realise the amount given in the award for a consideration of Rs. 6,66,400-. In the agreement it was mentioned that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as advance towards the sals consideration. On 4th October 1988 the petitioner moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the tenure-holder may be paid a sum of Rs. 6,63,400/- and the remaining amount may be paid to him. The respondent no. 4 is alleged to have also filed an application on 2nd April 1989 stating that he had received an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- jointly with the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- may be given. A sale deed is alleged to have been executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of the petitioner on a stamp paper of Rs. 5/- on 21-4-1989 in pursuance of agreement deed dated 19th August 1988 by which the right to realise the compensation was sold. The petitioner claims that on the same day he had paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent no. 4 and obtained a receipt.

3. The respondent no. 4 moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition, Officer on 26-4-1989 supported with an affidavit stating that the petitioner hid obtained the agreement by practising fraud. The petitioner had promised that his land would be released from the acquisition proceedings if an agreement is executed for transfer of his land in favour of the petitioner. He subsequently informed that the land could not be released. The petitioner in collusion with the employees of Land Acquisition department obtained part of the amount of compensation. The respondent no. 4 is an illiterate person and the petitioner obtained his signature by practising fraud.

4. The petitioner, on the other hand, moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27-4-1989 purporting to be under section 30 of the Act requesting for payment of compensation under the award to him and to make a reference to the District Judge. He also filed an objection to the application filed by Hat Prasad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application of the petitioner for making a reference. He took the view that the sale deed dated 21-4-89 under which the petitioner was claiming the right to receive this amount of award was an unregistered document and was unenforceable under law. The matter could not be referred to the District Judge under section 30 of the Act without any cogent reasons

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner had purchased an actionable claim as contemplated under section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act and on the basis of contract he was entitled to receive compensation under the award which was given in favour of the respondent no. 4 As the respondent no. 4 disputed the claim of the petitioner, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was bound to refer such dispute to the Court under section 30 of the Act.

5. There are two main questions firstly, whether such dispute can be referred to the Court under section 30 of the Act and secondly, even if such dispute is covered under section 30 of the Act, whether the Collector was bound to refer s