JUDGMENT

 These appeals arise from the judgments of the Madras High Court in one batch in C.R.P.Nos. 1141-1351/87 and batch dated April 7,1989; (reported in 1989 (1) Mad LJ 533) and another batch from a judgment of the Full Bench rendered in M/s Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd v. P. Ramaswami Naidu, AIR 1990 Mad.160. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 for short the Act was published in the year 1975 acquiring a large extent of 5200 acres of land for the purpose of excavating inferior quality of the coal in South Arcot District in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Tahsildar, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in the years 1977-80 under Section 11 of the Act. Dissatisfied therewith, the claimants sought and secured over 2000 references under Section 18 to the Civil Court, namely, the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. In some of which the Civil Court made awards and decrees under Section 26. In the pending references the appellant sought to be impleaded as a party respondent to adduce evidence for fixation of the proper compensation. The Civil Court dismissed the applications holding that the appellant is not an interested person by a common order dated November 28, 1986. The High Court in the revisions by judgment dated February 16, 1987 upheld the order of the Civil Court. In the appeals filed by the State under Section 54, the appellant sought to be impleaded as a party-respondent which were turned down holding that the appellant is not a person interested. Against that a batch of appeals have been filed here. The appellant also filed writ petitions challenging the validity of the award and decree made under Section 26 by filing writ petitions. The Full Bench held that the appellant is not a person interested. Therefore, dismissed the writ petitions. Thus these appeals have been filed by special leave.

2. When the appeals had come up on May 3, 1991 before a Bench of two Judges, our learned brethren made a reference to three-Judges Bench thus:

"We think that it would be proper that the entire matter including right to seek reference, to adduce evidence or to claim to be impleaded as a party before the Civil Court or its right to file appeal before the High Court against the above orders and all other allied questions are necessary to be considered by three Judges."

Thus these appeals before this Bench. It is not in dispute that the entire controversy hinge upon interpretation of Section 3(b) and Section 50(2) of the Act whether the appellant is a person interested either to be impleaded as a party-respondent to the pending references under Section 18 to lead evidence, contest the reference and if the compensation is enhanced to file an appeal in the High Court under Section 54 or to get impleaded as a party-respondent in the pending appeals filed by the land acquisition officer or to file a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the award and the decree made by the Civil Court under Section 26 of the Act.

3. Section 3(b) defines person interested thus :

"the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land."

4. It is an inclusive definition and all persons claiming an interest in the compensation as well as an interest in the determination of the compensation and easementary right affecting the acquired land. It is contended by Shri Bobde, learned Senior counsel for the appellant that this Court has consistently taken the view that the words "person interested" is to be liberally interpreted to include the company or the local authority for whose benefit the land was acquired since the company or the local authority is the person ultimately to bear the burden of the compensation. So it is interested to determine proper compensation payable to the land and also