Leading case law on apportionment of compensation under land acquisition Act
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that (1) the Collector had no authority to refer the matter under s. 30 after he had apportioned the amount of compensation under s. 11; (2) since title to. compensation is derived solely from and on the date of the award, the notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act did not deprive the appellant of his right to receive compensation; and (3) the State Government was not 'a person interested within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, and could not apply for a reference. under s. 30.
HELD: Per Shah and Bachawat, JJ.--(i) There are two provisions in the Act under which the Collector can make a reference to the Court, namely, s. 18 and s. 30. The powers under the two sections are distinct and may be invoked in contingencies which do not overlap. A person shown in that part. of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation who is present either personally or through a representative or on whom notice is issued under s. 12(2), must, if he does not accept the award, apply to the Collector to refer the matter to the Court under s. 18 within the time prescribed thereunder. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector may, if he is not served with notice of filing, raise a dispute as to apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/09/leading-case-law-on-apportionment-of.html
