Land acquisition title disputes under Section 30: Government is not a proper cost-bearing party in apportionment references.

A reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was held to cover any dispute as to title, including a controversy arising from materials before the acquiring authority even where only one claimant appeared. In an apportionment reference, the Government was not treated as an interested or proper party because the proceeding is directed to identifying the person truly entitled to compensation. Although costs are discretionary, that discretion could not be used to saddle the acquiring officer with costs in such a reference; the parties contesting title were to bear their own costs. The award of costs against the Government was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquiring officer is a proper party respondent in the civil court and whether costs can be awarded against him.

Analysis: The expression "dispute" in Section 30 was construed broadly to include any controversy as to title, including one arising from the materials before the acquiring authority, even if only one claimant appeared before the officer. In an apportionment reference, the Government was treated as not an interested or proper party, as the proceeding is concerned with identifying the person truly entitled to the compensation. The Court further held that although costs lie within judicial discretion, that discretion cannot be exercised so as to saddle the acquiring officer with costs in such a reference; the parties contesting title must bear their own costs in establishing entitlement.

Conclusion: The acquiring officer was not liable to be made a party for the purpose of costs, and the award of costs against the Government was set aside. The appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---