( 1 ) CRP 3525/81 is against the order adding the respondent as a party in a refeence made under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition act and C. R. P. 3793/81 is against the order declaining to add the petitioner as a party in the reference under Sec. 18 of the land Acquisition Act. It is brought to my notice that in Lakshmi Bai Vs. State of a. P. (1984-1, APLJ 242) Ramachandra raju, J. held that the Bench decision in nalgonda Municipality Vs. Mohiuddin (A. I. R. 1964 A. P. 305) is not a good law in view of the decisions in Grant Vs. State of Bihar ( A. I. R 1966 S. C. 237) and himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. F. C. Coutinho (A. I. R 1980 S. C 1118 ). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in C. R. P 3525/81 that the decision in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P ). Ltd. Vs. FV. Coutinho is concerned with the issue whether the company is a party interested to enable them to file an appeal and the only issue is whether the company which is a beneficiary can be considered as a "party interested" for the purpose of filing the appeal. The question whether a person, who has not availed of the opportunity of requesting for a referance either under Sec. 18 or Sec. 30 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document