Person for whom acquisition is made is not interested person.

Ratnam, J.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions Under Section 115, C.P.C. have been preferred by M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'N.L.C' for short)questioning the correctness of the common order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virdhachalam dismissing the applications filed by it under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying that it should be impleaded as party second respondent, in addition to the Referring Officer, who is the first respondent, in a batch of references Under Section 18 of the Act, now pending before the Sub Court, Virudhachalam at the instance of numerous claimants whose lands have been acquired.

2. For purposes of expansion of its productive programmes, N.L.C. requested the state of Tamil Nadu to acquire about 5,200 and odd acres of land and it is not now in dispute that a vast extent of land belonging to the respondents herein had been acquired under the provisions of the Act and possession of the lands so acquired, had also been taken over by N.L.C. In respect of the compensation payable to the owners of the lands so acquired, awards were passed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyveli, fixing the quantum of compensation payable to them on the basis of such materials as were placed, at the time of the award enquiry. Dissatisfied with the determination of the quantum of compensation under the awards the claimants whose lands had been acquired prayed for and obtained references Under Section 18(1) of the Act to the Civil Court (Sub Court), Virudhachalam and those references are now pending adjudication. According to N.L.C., in some of the references earlier disposed of, the quantum of compensation had been enhanced and if that was followed or applied in the other cases also, the amount that may eventually become payable by N.L.C. for the acquisition of the lands for its use would far exceed its budgeted outlay and it would, therefore be necessary for N.L.C. to implead itself as a necessary and proper party to the pending references so as to enable the Court to arrive at the true and correct market value of the lands, for purposes of fixing the quantum of compensation/This was opposed by the claimants, inter alia, on the ground that N.L.C. is neither a "person interested" for purposes of the Act nor a party to the award and indeed not in any manner interested in the references obtained by the claimants and that its interest, if any, could be adequately safeguarded by the Referring Officer and that it was therefore, neither a necessary nor a proper party to the references. A further objection was also raised that Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is inapplicable and cannot be invoked and at best N.L.C. can appear and adduce evidence in terms of Section 50(2) of the Act and no more and for that purpose, N.L.C. need not be impleaded as a party to the pending references.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, on a consideration of the claim so put forthy by N.L.C. and the objections raised by the claimants refuting that claim, found that N.L.C. cannot claim any interest in the compensation payable by it in relation to the lands acquired, in which the persons who had been deprived of their lands alone were interested and that N.L.C. could not project its claims to be impleaded either as a necessary or a proper party in the pending references obtained by the claimants Under Section 18(1) of the Act and that the only limited right available to N.L.C. was Under Section 50(2)of the Act, which would enable it to appear before court, if it so chose, and adduce evidence in order to assist the Court in fixing the compensation awardable to the claimants in a just and fair manner. On the conclusions so arrived at, the Court below dismissed the applications filed by N.L.C. negativing its claim to be impleaded as a party to the references.

4. Dr. Y.S. Chitale appearing on behalf of N.L.C. whi