The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 7th October, 2009. The judgment was reserved. Accordingly, the petition is today placed for judgment.

2. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1894"). The petitioner is the claimant in the said reference. By the impugned order, the third respondent (The City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited hereinafter referred to as "CIDCO") has been directed to be added as an opponent to the land acquisition reference under section 18 of the said Act of 1894.

3. A reference will have to be made to the facts of the case. The notification under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 in respect of the acquired land was issued on 24th September, 1986. The declaration under section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was issued on 17th September, 1987. After the award dated 18th September 1989 was made, an application under section 18 of the said Act of 1894 was filed by the petitioner on the basis of which a reference under section 18 of the said act of 1894 has been made to the Court. It must be noted here that the third respondent (CIDCO) made an application at Exhibit 38 on 7th April, 2004 contending that the said respondent was the beneficiary of the acquisition and on the basis of an agreement made by the said respondent with the Government of Maharashtra, compensation will be payable by the said respondent. Reliance was placed on sub-section (2) of section 50 of the said Act of 1894 and it was contended that the CIDCO was a necessary party to the land acquisition reference under section 18 of the said Act of 1894. By the judgment and order dated 27th October, 2004 the said application was rejected.

4. On 7th April, 2008, the State of Maharashtra represented by the District Government Pleader moved an application Exhibit 113 contending that the CIDCO being acquiring body was a necessary party to the said reference under section 18 of the said Act of 1894. It was contended that the State has acquired the land subject matter of reference and has transferred the land to CIDCO.

Therefore, a prayer was made for impleading the CIDCO as the second opponent to the said reference. The petitioner opposed the same on various grounds contending that the CIDCO was not the acquiring body. It was contended that CIDCO was neither a necessary nor a proper party. By the impugned order, the said application made by the State of Maharashtra was allowed and the petitioner was directed to implead the CIDCO as a party opponent to the said reference.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made detailed submissions on this aspect. Submissions are made on the basis of various provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1966"). It is submitted that under the provisions of the said Act of 1966 the CIDCO being a New Town Development Authority, there is no power vesting in CIDCO under section 113-A to acquire a land for the purpose of setting up a new town. The submission is that CIDCO was merely an agency of the State of Maharashtra for implementing the project of setting up the new township of New Bombay. He submitted that the decision to acquire the lands has not been taken by CIDCO but it is the decision of the State of Maharashtra. It is submitted that sub-section (2) of section 50 of the said Act of 1894 has no application. He has placed reliance on various notifications. He has also placed reliance on the amendment made to the said Act of 1966 in the year 1971.

6. Learned counsel for the third respondent CIDCO submitted that the CIDCO was established and appointed as a Special Planning Authority in relation to New Bombay. He submitted that the CIDCO is a Government company and the same is established under section 113(3A) of the said Act of 1966.