( 1 ) THE question as to whether the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the Act ), arises for consideration in these Civil Revision petitions.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question, the fact of each matter may be noticed: crp. No. 765 of 1998 : The lands of the Petitioners in this revision petition were acquired by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor and an award was passed in Award No. 1 of 1992 on 6-4-1992 granting compensation. On their request a reference was made to the civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was numbered as O. P. No. 514 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Pithapuram. The said reference is said to have been converted into a reference under S. 30 of the Act.

( 3 ) DURING pendency of the said proceedings, respondents 1 and 2 filed an application being I. A. No. 489 of 1989 under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC contending as that as they are cultivating tenants of the land acquired, they are also entitled for compensation, and hence, they may be impleaded as parties to the proceeding. The said application was allowed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 15-12-1997.

( 4 ) CRP. No. 3991 of 1999 : The petitioner in the revision petition is alleged to have purchased of Ac. 1. 00 land under an agreement of sale dated 26-11-1982 from respondent No. 14. The Land Acquisition Officer 15th respondent herein acquired certain extents lands in Suryaraopeta within the Kakinada municipality for construction of Ammonia Project by National Fertiliser Corporation Ltd. , in the year 1985 including the land of the 14th respondent herein. An award was passed in Award No. 4 of 1989 on 28-5-1989 awarding compensation in respect of an extent of Ac. 26. 55 cts. However as there was a dispute as to who is entitled to receive the amount of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer directed that the amount be deposited before the Sub-Court, Kakinda for disbursement as required under S. 31 of the Act and accordingly a reference was made to the Civil Court under S. 31 (2) of the Act which was numbered as O. P. No. 80 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Court, Kakinada. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner herein filed a suit being O. S. No. 301 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge s Court, Kakinada for declaration of his title in respect of Ac. 1. 00 and by judgment and decree dated 15-2-1999 he was declared as entitled to receive the entire compensation amount. A permanent injunction was also granted restraining the 14th respondent from receiving any amount of compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer or withdrawing any amount in respect of the schedule land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I. A. No. 539 of 1999 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as 15th respondent in the aforesaid O. P. which was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 1-7-1999. Submissions :

( 5 ) MR. M. S. R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, would submit that having regard to the definition of person interested occurring in sub-section (b) of S. 3 of the Act and various other provisions thereof and in particular Sections 9, 11, 19, 20 and 21, it must be held that a person who was not a party in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer is not entitled to be impleaded in a reference for the first time unless he claims his interest under or through such person.

( 6 ) IN support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Grant v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 237 and Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas AIR 1968 SC 366.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel would submit that the decisions of this Court in Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd. , Hyderabad v. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan AIR 1994 Andh Pra 199, Nal