HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No. 3 of 1992 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This appeal is filed by the second claimant against the order, dated 24-09-1991 passed in O.P.No.8 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government acquired an extent of Ac.1-37 cents in Sy.No.250/14 of Pithapuram for the purpose of construction of reservoir and approach road through the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and took possession of the same. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.6 of 1988, dated 25-08- 1988 fixing the compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs.33,400/- per acre. Subsequent to the passing of the Award, a dispute arose between the claimants with regard to the apportionment of the compensation amount. Therefore, they sought to refer the matter to the Reference Court for apportionment of the compensation among them. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Reference Court under Section 31(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of enquiry before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were got marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Reference Court, through the impugned order, answered the reference holding that the first claimant is entitled to 1/4th of the total compensation amount, claimant Nos.2, 3 and 10 are entitled to 1/2 of the total compensation amount, and claimant Nos.5 to 9 are entitled to 1/4th of the total compensation amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the second claimant filed the present appeal contending that the Reference Court wrongly held that claimant Nos.2, 3 and 10 are entitled to 1/2 share, but however, he is exclusively entitled to 1/2 share in the total compensation amount. He further contended that the Reference Court failed to determine the just compensation under Section 18 of the Act. 5. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the second claimant states that the second claimant has given up his claim for exclusive 1/2 share; and confined his argument that the Reference Court failed to determine the just compensation under Section 18 of the Act. 6. The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that the claimants are entitled to make a written application after attaining finality of the interse dispute relating to the apportionment of their claims and thus contended that even now, it is open for the claimants to make a written application for reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act. 7. In view of the rival contentions, the point arises for consideration is whether the second claimant-appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation in the absence of any written application filed before the Land Acquisition Officer for reference under Section 18 of the Act? POINT: 8. Before the Reference Court, the first claimant alone filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.332 of 1991 for amendment of the reference and to treat it as a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by its order dated 04-09- 1991 dismissed the said application on merits holding that no protest application was filed at any time and no request was made before the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act and that the statement made seeking enhancement of the compensation during the course of enquiry cannot be treated as a representation in writing for reference under Section 18 of the Act and after passing the award, in the absence of any written representation, the representation made during the course of award cannot be treated as the protest or written representation to refer the matter, and the claimants were unable to produce any document in respect of their claim having made a written representation after passing the award. The said order dated 04-09-1991 has become final as no appeal or revision was filed against the same. 9. Before this Court also, no material has been placed by the second claimant-appellant with regard to the filing of any written application for reference under Section 18 of the Act after passing of the award. Under Section 18(2) of the Act, after passing of the award, unless a written application or representation is filed either with regard to the enhancement or apportionment of the compensation or entitlement of the claim, no such reference can be made by the Collector. 10. The reference, in the instant case, was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 31(2) of the Act alone as the appellant herein made the claim for the entire compensation. None of the claimants have filed any written application, after passing of the award, with regard to the enhancement of compensation. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the second claimant- appellant contends that the representations, documents, and the material placed during the enquiry, shall be treated as a request to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act and thus the Collector ought to have referred the matter under Section 18 of the Act. 12. But the said contention, in our view, is not correct as rightly held by the Reference Court, on the ground that participation of the claimants during the award proceedings with regard to their entitlement for compensation, measurement and apportionment, is distinct and different from that of the written representation made before the Collector for reference. The disputes among the claimants with regard to their right, title and apportionment of the compensation cannot be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer, and Section 30 of the Act contemplates that the dispute as to apportionment has to be referred to the Civil Court. The objections as to the measurement of the land and the amount of compensation claimed during the award enquiry, are contemplated to be referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, by way of a written application to the Collector. 13. Admittedly the reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Act only and there is no written application filed by the claimants, after passing the award, to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court adjudicated the issue under Section 31(2) of the Act regarding the apportionment of the compensation. As per the submission of the learned counsel, the second claimant-appellant is not disputing the apportionment of the compensation made by the Reference Court, but his only grievance is that the Reference Court did not consider the matter under Section 18 of the Act. But, as per Section 18 of the Act, unless there is a written application to the Collector by the claimants, after passing the award, the matter cannot be referred to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the second respondent-claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation in the absence of any such written application filed for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the Reference Court rightly answered the reference through the impugned order and it needs no interference and liable to be confirmed. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. However, it is left open to the second claimant-appellant as well as other claimants to take appropriate steps to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. No order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 15-11-2011 YCR