JUDGMENT Takru, J. - This revision by Messrs. L. H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Private Ltd., Kashipur is directed against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Nainital, dated the 12th February, 1966, ordering that the written-statement filed by the applicant shall be placed on the record but shall 'not be taken into account in the matter of settlement of issues'. 2. It appears that 1.80 acres of land, with the buildings and trees standing thereon, belonging to the opposite parties, situate in village Kharakpur Devipura, Pargana and tahsil Kashipur, district Nainital was acquired for the applicant under the Land Acquisition Act-hereinafter called the Act-and the opposite parties were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8272.65 p. for the same. 'The opposite parties feeling dissatisfied with the award asked for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Notices of the reference were issued by the District Judge to the Collector of Nainital and the applicant, and they were required to file their written-statements. Both the Collector and the applicant filed written-statement. However on the date fixed for the framing of issues i.e. the 12th February, 1966, the learned Addl. District judge, to who the reference had been transferred in the meantime, passed the order giving rise to this revision and mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 3. On behalf of the applicant, its learned counsel Sri C. S. P. Singh urged that the learned Addl. District judge acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him by law, (1) by refusing to allow the applicant to put in appearance by filing his written-statement thus precluding it from adducing evidence in the case and (2) by 'misconstruing Section 50 (2) of the Act which expressly conferred upon the applicant the right to put in appearance and adduce evidence. 4. After perusing the written-statements filed by the Collector and the applicant and the relevant provisions of the Act, and hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am satisfied that the aforesaid contentions are not sound for reasons which I shall proceed forthwith to indicate. 5. Now the procedure which governs a reference under the Act is contained in Section 18 to 20 thereof. 5. Now the procedure which governs a reference under the Act is contained in Section 18 to 20 thereof. Section 18 inter alia lays down that any person interested who has not accepted the award, may by a written-application to the Collector within the time mentioned therein, require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the court. Section 19 lays down the particulars which the Collector is required to state in that reference for the information of the Court. Section 20 provides that on receipt of the reference the Court is to issue a notice to the applicant, as also the persons interested in the objection, and, if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, to the Collector. The expression 'person interested' is defined in Section 3 (6) of the Act to include all persons claiming an interest in the compensation on account of the acquisition of land. Hence under Section 20 notices have to go to the persons claiming an interest in the compensation and in certain circumstances to the Collector. There is no provision requiring notices to be sent to the person on whose behalf the acquisition is made, from which it follows that unless there is some other provision in the act conferring any right upon such person, that person has no locus standi in the reference. In the case of a Company the Act has made special provision in Section 50 (2) . That sub- section provides that where an acquisition is made on behalf of a Company, the latter may appear and adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation. The question that falls for consideration therefor is whether the words "may appear and adduce evidence" confers on the company concerned the right to file a written-statement as well, or its rights are confined to appearing and adducing evidence only. In my opinion the extent of the right conferred upon the company cannot be held to extend to its filing a written statement also, because if that had been the intention then Section 19 would have made a provision for a notice of the reference to be issued to it also. In my opinion the extent of the right conferred upon the company cannot be held to extend to its filing a written statement also, because if that had been the intention then Section 19 would have made a provision for a notice of the reference to be issued to it also. The absence of a such a provision in Section 19 clearly shows that for the purposes of the record it is only the Collector who matters though for purposes of defending the reference the company can only come forward and take part in the proceedings. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Company has no right under Section 50 (2) to file a written-statement and it can only 'appear and adduce evidence to support of the allegations contained in the written statement filed by the Collector. As the written statement filed by the Collector is for all practice purposes the same as that filed by the applicant no prejudice is likely to be caused to it either by the impugned order. The result, therefore, is that this revision fails and is dismissed with costs. 6. Let the record of the case be sent down to the learned Addl. District judge Kumaun-Nainital at an early date so that he may proceed to dispose of the reference as soon as possible.