These four appeals can be decided together since identical questions are involved in them.

2. The facts are as follows: The Government of Maharashtra issued a Gazette Notification on 06/04/1988 acquiring the land in question for Khumari Talao, Minor Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award against the State on 26/06/1992. A reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Civil Court and the references were registered as Land Acquisition Cases. In the said reference cases there were three non applicants namely [1] State of Maharashtra [2] Land Acquisition Officer and [3] Collector. The Civil Court passed an award in the said cases on 31.01.2001. Dissatisfied with the award the Executive Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Division Nagpur preferred these appeals. The appeals came to be presented on 06.06.2001. Later on Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as VIDC) moved an application for adding it as party/appellant. This application is opposed by the respondent.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for respondents. The learned counsel for the VIDC submits that VIDC seeks to add itself as party-appellant on the ground first that it has taken over Minor Irrigation Project from the Minor Irrigation Department of Government of Maharashtra, secondly it is now liable to pay enhanced compensation and thirdly no notice was given to it even though it is an acquiring body.

4. Shri Najbile learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the appeal itself is incompetent as it is preferred by an authority who had no right to do so. He submits that the VIDC had come into existence in 1998 itself and the project stood transferred to it in 1998 only. He submits that therefore the appeal against the order which came to be passed by the Reference Court on 31.01.2001 should have been preferred by the VIDC and the same having not been preferred by the VIDC the appeal is not maintainable. He also submits that the VIDC did not apply before the Civil Court to add itself as party and though Corporation was in existence on the day civil Court passed an award on 31.01.2001. The learned counsel for the VIDC submits that this controversy has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. He submits that such an appeal is maintainable and competent and even if the VIDC did not apply for adding it as party that could make no difference. This Court observed while deciding First Appeal No. 40 of 2007 at Nagpur (Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation through its Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yeotmal .vs. Shyam Dnyaneshwar Kadam and Others dated 4 th June 2007) as follows:

Mr. Sambre, Adv., on the other hand, contends that the Award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in this case has been declared on 30.3.1996 and the Reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been filed on 18.5.1996. he further contends that the Award mentions the State Government as an acquiring body and the appellant VIDC (Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation) has been established after 1997 as the Act giving birth to the same received accent of the Hon'ble President in the year 1998. He further contends that on all the relevant dates the VIDC itself was not in existence and therefore, the First Appeal is not at all maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment reported at 2002 (4) Mh. L. J. 737, Muinicipal Council, Jalna Vs. State of Maharashttra and Others, particularly the paragraph 14. he further states that during pendency of appeal, amount of enhanced compensation has been deposited by the appellant before the lower Court and the lower Court permitted the respondent to withdraw the same after putting certain conditions for that purpose. He further contends that for all practical purposes, the appeal has be