J.M. SHETH, J.:- This revision petition raises an interesting question, as to whether the acquiring body for whose benefit the land which is proposed to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (which will be hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is a necessary or a proper party in a suit filed by a person interested in the land challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings started by the Government. The trial Court has held in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1971, in which this question arose for decision, against the Mahuva Municipality, the acquiring body (petitioner). The petitioner-municipality has, therefore, come in revision against that order, dated 8th July, 1971, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, in that suit below Ex. 14.

2. The learned Chief Justice who issued 'rule', has ordered this revision petition to be heard by a Division Bench as two single Judges of this Court in two different revision petitions have taken different views.

3. Mr. R. A. Mehta, appearing for Mr. K. G. Vakharia, for the petitioner, has urged that the acquisition proceedings in question were started at the instance of the petitioner-municipality. In the plaint, allegations were made by the plaintiffs (opponents Nos. 1 to 4) against the petitioner. The land was sought to be acquired for the purposes of the said Municipality for its Nutan Nagar Scheme No. 2. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr. Mehta that the petitioner is vitally interested in the result of the suit. It was urged by him that the petitioner was a necessary party or at any rate, a proper party, and consequently, the trial Court was not justified in refusing to add it as a party to the suit. He also invited our attention to the agreement which the local authority is required to enter into with the Government when such proceedings are started at the instance of a local authority. That form of an agreement has been referred to in extenso in the Manual of Land Acquisition for the State of Gujarat, written by Anderson, 1971 edition, pages 103 and 104. That agreement indicates that the costs of such acquisition are to be borne by the local authority. Mr. Mehta has laid considerable emphasis on the latter part of this agreement, which reads:

".........And the Governor both hereby agree with the Municipality that as soon as all costs and charges of the said acquisition shall be paid by it or recovered from it as aforesaid, the said land together with the trees, houses and other things standing thereon or attached thereto, or permanently fastened to anything attached thereto, shall vest in the Municipality and be thenceforth held by it for the purposes of the Municipal Act like any other property vested in the Municipality under Section 50/63 of the Municipal Act (free of all claim or charges whatsoever on the part of the Government)."

Relying upon this part of the agreement, it is submitted by Mr. Mehta that this land which is the subject-matter of acquisition is ultimately to vest in the municipality, the moment it pays the costs and charges of the said acquisition or such costs or charges are recovered from it. In support of his arguments, he has invited our attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court and one decision of the Allahabad High Court.

4. Mr. Vidyarthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for opponent No. 5 State of Gujarat, as well as for opponent No. 6 Special Land Acquisition Officer, supported the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and further urged that it was not necessary that the petitioner's right should have been violated. The element of indicia of legal injury or pecuniary loss which such a person or entity may suffer, was sufficient to conclude that such a person or entity was a proper party. It was submitted by him that it is the petitioner which will have ultimately to bear the costs of the acquisition proceedings. It could, therefore, be said that that body would suffer legal injury or at