A. SAMBASIVA RAO, Actg. C. J.: - Dry land of an extent of Ac. 3-11 guntas out of Survey No. 37 in Premavathipat village was acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of establishing the Agricultural University at Rajendranagar. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was made on 2-11-1965. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award determining the market value of the land, as on the date of notification at Rs. 600 per acre, though the owner of the land claimed at the rate of Rs. 3 per square yard. At the instance of the claimant, reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was numbered as O. P. 236/69. The second additional Chief Judge of that court enhanced the rate to Re. 0.75 per square yard by his order dated 10th December, 1970. The Special Tahsildar, who is the Land Acquisition Officer, did not prefer any appeal, but the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as the University) sought to file an appeal against the order of the learned Second Additional Chief Judge. Since it was not party to the reference to the lower court, it applied for leave of this court to file the appeal. An ex parte leave was granted by this court and consequently the appeal came to be numbered as C. C. C. A. 19/72. The land acquisition officer was impleaded as 2nd respondent to the appeal. On 13th September, 1974 C. M. P. No. 8830 of 1974 was filed by the 2nd respondent for transposing him as the 2nd appellant in the appeal.

2. When the appeal with the petition for transposition came up for hearing before Madhava Reddy J. and Jayachandra Reddy. J. the learned Judge referred the entire appeal for consideration by a Full Bench. While doing so, they pointed out that the primary question to be considered would be "whether the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University for whose benefit the land in question is acquired is entitled to prefer an appeal and if it cannot prefer an appeal as of right, whether leave could and ought to be granted to it?" The reference was occasioned by the ivergence of opinion between the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University v. Dan Reddy, (1974) 1 Andh LT 332, and the view indicated by another Division Bench in C.C.C.A. No. 113 of 1971 (Andh. Pra.) and batch. It may be noted that in the latter decision, though the learned Judges ultimately agreed with the view of the earlier Division Bench, they indicated their preference for the opposite view. Madhava Reddy and Jayachandra Reddy JJ. themselves were inclined to agree with the opinion indicated by the latter Bench. This is how the appeal came up before a Full Bench.

3. At the hearing of the appeal the 1st respondent (owner of the land) has raised a primary objection that the University is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings taken by the Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Act and that it is not entitled to prefer an appeal against the compensation fixed by the court on such a reference. It has been further objected to by the 1st respondent that it is not even open to the University to seek leave of the Court to prefer an appeal and the court cannot grant such leave, since the University was not and could not be a party to the reference proceedings before the lower court.

4. Before us it was conceded that the University could not prefer an appeal against the decision of the lower court as of right. This concession is quite right for the reason that the University was not a party to the proceedings in the lower Court. The appeal by the University was, however, justified on the ground that though it was not a party to the reference to the lower court, it is aggrieved and prejudiced by the high rate of compensation fixed by the court, as it is the University that should pay the compensation from out of its funds. Since it is the person for wh