K.K.TATED, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By consent, the matter is taken on board for final hearing.

3. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the original Respondent no.3 – City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) against the judgment dated 7th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no.1211 of 2009 by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the Reference Court in Application Exhibit 113 in Land Acquisition Reference No.620 of 2000 holding that the Appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the Land Acquisition Reference Application.

4. A few facts of the matter are as under: In the present proceeding, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the acquired land was issued on 24th September, 1986. Thereafter, the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 17th September, 1987. After the Award dated 18th September, 1989 was made, an Application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed by the Respondent no.1 – original claimant. In the said Reference, the Appellant – CIDCO made an Application at Exhibit 38 on 7th April, 2004 contending that they are the beneficiaries of the acquisition and on the basis of agreement made by them with the Government of Maharashtra, compensation will be payable by the Appellant – CIDCO. They relied on sub section 2 of section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the said Application, CIDCO contended that they were necessary party to the Land Acquisition Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said Application was rejected by the Reference Court by an order dated 27th October, 2004. This order has been allowed to attain finality. As a result, the issue could not have been raised by the State.

5. However, on 7th April, 2008, the State of Maharashtra moved an Application Exhibit 113 contending that CIDCO being acquiring body was necessary party to the said Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State contended in the said Application that the subject matter of Reference is the land acquired by them and which has been transferred to the CIDCO and, therefore, they made prayer for impleading the CIDCO as second opponent in the said Reference. The same was opposed by the Respondent no.1 – original claimant on various grounds contending that CIDCO was not the acquiring body. They stated that acquisition was not done by the State at the instance of CIDCO. The State has made acquisition on its own and thereafter, decided to transfer the said land to CIDCO for development. The Reference Court by an order dated 29th September, 2008 allowed the Application below Exhibit 113 preferred by the State of Maharashtra and directed Respondent no.1 – original claimant to add CIDCO as opponent no.2 in Land Acquisition Reference no.620 of 2000.

6. The order dated 29th September, 2008 was challenged by the Respondent no.1 original claimant by preferring Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 7th November, 2009. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal.

7. The learned counsel Mr. Kumbhakoni appearing on behalf of the Appellant – CIDCO submits that the impugned judgment dated 7th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no.1211 of 2009 is against justice, equity and good conscience and the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the Petition and ought to have rejected the same in toto. The learned Single Judge erred in quashing and setting aside the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the trial court in Application at Exhibit 113 in Land Acquisition Reference no.620 of 2000 and rejecting the said Application. He submits that on the contrary, the learned Single Judge