JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - I think this appeal must succeed. The difficulty, if difficulty there be, arises out of certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Certain property had to be acquired by Government Some of the parties Interested in the apportionment of the compensation money awarded, objected to the apportionment, and a reference was made under the Act by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hughly. There were several parties Interested in the money awarded. There was the zemindar and a succession of tenants, of whom the present Appelants were some, apparently in the line of succession the third. They were awarded a sum of Rs. 1,222 odd. The landlord and some of the tenants superior to the present Appellants objected to the apportionment and the reference was made for apportionment of the compensation amongst the interested parties. The struggle apparently was between the zemindar and the superior tenants on the one side, and the present Appellants who by the award of the Collector seem to have obtained the larger part of the sum awarded, which was Rs. 1,612, on the other. The matter proceeded before the Subordinate Judge: but on the 5th of September 1905, the date of the reference being the 13th of February 1905, one Haran Chandra Mukerjee, the present Respondent, appeared upon the scene and asked that he might be made a claimant In the case and applied for time to put in a statement: and on the 7th September that application was allowed. The matter then proceeded before the Subordinate Judge and, he by his judgment, dated the 9th of February 1905, awarded the whole of the compensation money to Haran Chandra Mukerjee who the Appellants say ought not to have been allowed to Intervene at so late a stage. Hence this appeal. A preliminary objection is taken that the proper Court-fee has not been paid on the appeal. If that be so, we think it is clearly a mistake : and, under sec. 582A of the CPC we can set It right and allow the proper Court-fee to be paid which must be supplied within a week from this date. This enables us to decide the appeal on the merits. 2. I think the Subordinate Judge bad no jurisdiction to allow Haran Chundra Mukerjee to be made a party to these Proceedings at the stage he did. This enables us to decide the appeal on the merits. 2. I think the Subordinate Judge bad no jurisdiction to allow Haran Chundra Mukerjee to be made a party to these Proceedings at the stage he did. It is dear from a recent case in this Court, the case of Abu Bakar v. Peary Mohan Mukerjee ILR 34 Cal. 451 (1907), that the only persons who can raise any objection to the award of the Collector are the persons who are parties to the proceedings in the first instance and that the Court can only deal with the objections which they have made to the award. In that case, secs. 18, 20 and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act were carefully considered and it was held that under those sections the Court can only deal with an objection which has been referred to it, and it cannot go into any question raised for the first time by a party who had not referred any question or any objection to it under sec. 18 of the Act. If that be the law, it is clear that the present case is a weaker one for the Respondent, because here Haran Chandra Mukerjee was not even a party to the proceedings before the Collector, and consequently had made no objection to the award : and no objection by him had been referred to the Court. 3. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and the matter must go back to the Subordinate Judge to deal with the objections which were actually referred to him; and, the Appellant must have the costs of this appeal--hearing-fee three gold mohurs. 4. The Appellant is entitled to a refund of the Court-fee paid and to be paid on the memorandum of appeal, under sec. 13 of the Court Fees Act. I may add that the rights if any of Haran Chandra Mukerjee who must be regarded as not properly a party to these proceedings will not be affected by them. Coxe, J. I agree.