(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 7.7.2005 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer -opp. party No. 1 rejecting his application for reference of the dispute under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(2.) THE facts of the case reveal that certain lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and the opp. party No. 1 being the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act in favour of the recorded owners whose name found place in the record of rights with respect to the acquired land. The petitioner filed an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer claiming that he is entitled to a portion of the compensation awarded being a joint owner and sought for reference of the dispute under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act. The opp. party No. 1 by order dated 7.7.2005 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the process of land acquisition was based on the current settlement record and individual right, title and interest of the recorded tenants cannot be denied and further, the right, title and interest of the petitioner who is not a recorded tenant cannot be decided in a land acquisition proceeding. He further directed disbursement of the awarded amount in favour of the awardees pursuant to the award passed by him.
(3.) MR . Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason given in the impugned order by the opp. party No. 1 that since the land acquisition process is based on current settlement records and individual right, title and interest of the recorded tenants cannot be denied at present and, as such, no reference can be made either under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act, is fallacious. According to Mr. Mukherjee, a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act can be made at the instance of any person interested in the compensation awarded or in the land acquired.