CR No.2182 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2182 of 2003 Date of Decision: December 14,2009 Tara Chand Sharma ...........Petitioner Versus Haryana State and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Amit Jain,Advocate,for the petitioner. None for the respondents -- Sabina, J. Petitioner sought a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short `the Act'). Vide the impugned order dated 1.8.2002. the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reference had been sought under Section 30 of the Act before the disbursement of the amount of compensation. It was only, during the pendency of the reference, the amount had been disbursed to respondents No. 3 to 8. Section 30 of the Act reads as under:- “30.Dispute as to apportionment- 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 CR No.2182 of 2003 2 payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.” The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 to 8 had share in the suit property acquired by the State and were entitled to receive compensation of the acquired land as per their shares. Except respondent No.3, who had 8/14th share in the suit property, the plaintiff and the remaining defendants No. 4 to 8 had 1/14th share each of the acquired land. A perusal of the order reveals that no reasons have been given while declining the reference sought by the petitioner on the ground that it was not maintainable. The plea of the petitioner that, in fact, the amount had been disbursed during the pendency of the reference has also not been dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge. In case the petitioner has some share in the acquired land, he is entitled to receive compensation qua the same. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.8.2002 is set aside. Reference Court is directed to dispose of the reference sought by the petitioner by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 25.1.2010. ( Sabina ) Judge December 14, 2009 arya CR No.2182 of 2003 3