Judgment :- 1. W.P. No. 15230/88 : At the instance of the petitioner (beneficiary), the lands belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 were sought to be acquired by issue of a notification under S. 4(1) of the Central Act 1 of 1894 and an award was made in December, 1976. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the respondents 1 and 2 sought for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, which took it on its file and granted enhanced compensation by order dated 10-2-1987. 2. The petitioner would submit that the order of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri should be quashed because the Sub-Court did not hear the petitioner, which is interested in the land acquisition proceedings and which ultimately may have to pay the enhanced compensation, if any, awarded and therefore, the petitioner being a proper and necessary party should have been heard before judgment is delivered. 3. The decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Rangaswami (AIR 1990 Madras 160= 1989-2-L.W. 381 (F.B.)) is directly against the petitioner. 4. The second contention of the petitioner is that by reason of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1990, which added Cl. (d) to S. 20 stating that notice should go to the person or authority for whom the acquisition is made, the Sub-Court should have issued notice to the petitioner before enhancing the compensation. Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1990 was gazetted on 9th May, 1990 and it is not retrospective in operation. However, sub-S. (e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1990 states that S. 20 of the Principal Act, as amended by S. 2, shall apply also to all proceedings pending before any court, on the date of the commencement of this Act. Relying on the above provision, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the matter relating to the award of compensation to respondents 1 and 2 is now pending before this Court, the Principal Act as amended by Act 14 of 1990 should be made applicable and if so applied, the judgement of the Sub-Court should be quashed, and a direction issued to the Sub-Court to give notice to the petitioner and hear the petition er before enhancing the compensation. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly unsustainable. The word ‘court’ is defined in Central Act 1 of 1894 in S. 3(d) as follows: “the expression “court” means a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial office within any specified local limits to perform, the functions of the Court under the Act.” Therefore, it is obvious that the proceedings which should be taken as pending before any Court should be the proceedings pending before a Sub-Court in a reference under S. 18 of the Act and the petitioner cannot equate the High Court when it exercises jurisdiction under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India as a Subordinate Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 18 of the Act. Hence, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not sustainable. This writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. W.P. No. 15288 of 1988 For the reasons stated in this case in W.P. No. 15230 of 1988 above, this writ petition is also dismissed. No costs.