1. It seems to me that the Application made by the revision petitioner under Order I R.10 C. P. C. to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings in the Court following a reference by the Collector under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was misconceived. It has been rightly dismissed by the court below although the reason given by it, namely, that the petitioner had given a signed statement to the Collector disclaiming interest in the land acquired (a fact denied by the petitioner and of which there 13 no proof) can hardly bear examination. Admittedly the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Collector, and he made no claim to the Collector. The dispute occassioning the reference was between the petitioner's brother, who claimed a verumpattom interest in the land, and the jenmi of the land. It related to the apportionment of the compensation, and the reference was made at the instance of the jenmi. Now the ground on which the petitioner sought to come on the party array was that he, and not his brother, was entitled to the verumpattom right, and the dispute on which he wanted the court to adjudicate was this dispute between himself and his brothe