A local authority or company in whose favor an acquisition is made has no right of appeal, but in appropriate cases, the court can grant leave to appeal.

1. These petitions raise a common question and are being disposed of by a common order. In all these petitions, the Commissioner, Trichur Municipality, is the petitioner. These petitions arise from Land Acquisition Proceedings, L.A.R. No.137of 1976. Lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of Bell Mouth and Shopping Centre for the Municipality in the Naduvilal Junction, Trichur. The original compensation awarded was enhanced by the court below. The Municipality has to pay this. The State has not filed any appeal. In these petitions the Commissioner of the Municipality requests that leave may be granted to him for filing appeals against the judgment and decree in L.A R. No. 137 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trichur.

2. I shall consider the facts in L.A.A. No. 137 of 1978 for the purpose of this judgment. This appeal was filed on 16th August, 1979 and the present application for leave under S.151 CPC. on 3rd October, 1979. These two dates show that the appeal as originally filed was not accompanied by the leave petition. The question is whether the defect in presentation of the appeal will be cured by the subsequent application. This defect is common to all the petitions though the dates are different.

3. The contesting respondents have raised several pleas. According to them the appeals are not maintainable. In any case no leave can be granted since the leave petitions were not filed along with the appeals. They cannot cure the defect as they cannot operate retroactively.

4. Two questions arise in these petitions. (1) Whether a company or a local authority in whose favour an acquisition is made, is a person interested and (2) whether such a person has a right of appeal against the order of compensation.

5. Regarding the first question; a company or a local authority in whose favour an acquisition is made has an interest in the acquisition proceedings because it has to pay the compensation. But its rights are restricted; it cannot demand a reference. It can only appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. S.55 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act makes this clear. It reads:

"55. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority, or company. (1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of a company, the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or company.

(2) In any proceeding held before a Collector or Court in such cases, the local authority or company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation:

Provided that no such local authority or company shall be entitled to demand a reference under S.20."

Powers not enumerated in the Section are not available for the company or the local authority; hence no power to demand reference or to file an appeal.

6. In Nagpur Corpn v. Narendrakumar (AIR. 1959 Bombay 297) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held with reference to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that the local authority or company for whose benefit an acquisition is made, is not a person interested. In Mandalay Munol Committee v. Mauno It (AIR. 1929 Rangoon 115) a Division Bench of that court held that persons interested in S.20 of the Act are persons interested in the land acquired as owners, tenants and the like and not persons interested as acquiring the land through the Secretary of State. Such persons had only a limited right and that is to appear and adduce evidence. The company or a local authority for whose benefits an acquisition is made can make evidence available before the Land Acquisition Officer or the court to fix the compensation. It cannot demand a reference. So viewed, it cannot be said to be a person interested. I am in respectful agreement with the principle enunciated in the above decisions.

7. The second question is whet