K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The E.S.I. Corporation established in terms of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has come up with these two original petitions challenging Ext. P1 judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara in L.A.R. Nos. 408/96,13/1989 and 14/1989. Those judgments were passed in the references made by the second respondent at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that those judgments were passed without notice to it and that being party interested as defined in S.3(b) of the said Act, it was entitled to notice as provided in S.20 of the Act. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings which led to the impugned judgments enacting compensation payable to the respondents 3 and 4 in this case. It is their contention that the compensation payable to respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of enhancement ordered in the impugned judgment has to be met from the funds of the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced compensation as decreed in terms of the impugned judgments without notice to them, the petitioner submits, inspite of the statutory provision