JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894. The Appellant was one of the claimants before the Collector. A reference was made at his instance to the Judge under the Act under sec. 18. The learned Judge in the lower Court has held that this claimant, that is, the Appellant before us had no locus standi to ask for a reference. He has come to this conclusion mainly on an interpretation of sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. The facts before the lower Court were these. A declaration for the acquisition was made on the 26th November 1903, but before the date of the declaration Galstaun, the Appellant, had entered into a contract with one Bhuban Mohan Chatterjee who was mourasdar under Government of the laud intended to be acquired. Notice of the intended acquisition under sec. 9 of the Act was issued on the 4th January 1904, and one of the parties on whom notice was issued was Galstaun. The only person who appeared before the Collector was Galstaun, Bhuban Mohan taking no interest in the proceeding. The Collector gave his award on the 30th January 1904 awarding as compensation an amount much less than that claimed by Galstaun. The award shows that one of the claimants was Galstaun who is described as an Intending purchaser of the tenant right of Bhuban Mohan. The Collector took possession on behalf of the Government on the same day, viz., the 30th January 1904. 3. In the meantime, the transaction between Galstaun and Bhuban Mohan had advanced so far that Galstaun gave Bhuban Rs. 5,000 in part payment of the consideration. On the 29th February 1904, Galstaun as the only contesting claimant made an application for a reference under sec. 18 and a reference was actually made on his application on the 17th March 1904. The acquisition, however, having been completed, Bhuban could not convey the property to Galstaun, but on the 13th August 1904 Bhuban by an Indenture of that date conveyed to Galstaun all the interest that he could claim on account of the land and the acquisition by the Government. He also gave Galstaun an irrevocable power-of -attorney. 4. The acquisition, however, having been completed, Bhuban could not convey the property to Galstaun, but on the 13th August 1904 Bhuban by an Indenture of that date conveyed to Galstaun all the interest that he could claim on account of the land and the acquisition by the Government. He also gave Galstaun an irrevocable power-of -attorney. 4. On the application of the Government pleader, in the proceeding under sec 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Judge in the lower Court considered the question whether Galstaun had a locus standi to ask for a reference. He made an order on the 12th November 1904 against Galstaun, and on 14th November passed a decree against him with costs confirming the award of the Collector. 5. Two appeals have been presented to us, one from the order of the 12th November, which is numbered 140 of 1905, and the other against the final order made in the proceeding, which is numbered 11 of 1905. 6. The question that arises in the case is :--Had Galstaun an interest in the amount of compensation such as would entitle him to come before the Judge for ascertaining what was payable by Government as compensation on account of the acquisition 7. The case before the lower Court had not arrived at the stage when the question of the apportionment of compensation could be gone into. The only matter that the Court had to decide, at the stage the case had arrived, was what was the amount of compensation to be paid for the acquisition. Whether Galstaun had an interest such as would entitle him to any portion of the compensation was a matter foreign to the proceeding at that stage. As a matter of fact, there was no contest as to apportionment. Galstaun claimed an interest in the compensation money and the Collector thought he was a person who could come in as claiming an interest, and these facts were sufficient to entitle Galstaun to ask for a reference and to appear in support of it. 8. In the view we take, sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application. It may be that in a subsequent stage of the proceeding the question of Galstaun's interest will have to be looked into. 8. In the view we take, sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application. It may be that in a subsequent stage of the proceeding the question of Galstaun's interest will have to be looked into. It does not seem to us to be the intention of the Legislature that, when a question arises as to what the amount of compensation should be, there should be an enquiry as to the interest of the person claiming compensation. That is a matter for decision when an enquiry is made as to the persons entitled to compensation. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decision of the lower Court should be set aside, and the case remanded to that Court for a decision as to the amount of compensation payable by Government on account of the acquisition. 9. As regards other matters they must, if necessary, be decided in another stage of the proceeding subsequent to the determination of the amount of compensation. But so far as we see, no other question has yet been raised. 10. In the view we take, it is unnecessary for us to make separate orders on the two appeals before us. But it seems to us that appeal from order No. 140 of 1905 was not only unnecessary; it is very doubtful whether there was a right of appeal against an interlocutory order of the nature appealed from. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal No. 140 of 1905 with costs. Appeal No. 11 of 1905 should be decreed with costs.