S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE question as to whether the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the Act ), arises for consideration in these Civil Revision petitions. ( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question, the fact of each matter may be noticed: crp. No. 765 of 1998 : The lands of the Petitioners in this revision petition were acquired by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor and an award was passed in Award No. 1 of 1992 on 6-4-1992 granting compensation. On their request a reference was made to the civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was numbered as O. P. No. 514 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Pithapuram. The said reference is said to have been converted into a reference under S. 30 of the Act. ( 3 ) DURING pendency of the said proceedings, respondents 1 and 2 filed an application being I. A. No. 489 of 1989 under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC contending as that as they are cultivating tenants of the land acquired, they are also entitled for compensation, and hence, they may be impleaded as parties to the proceeding. The said application was allowed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 15-12-1997. ( 4 ) CRP. No. 3991 of 1999 : The petitioner in the revision petition is alleged to have purchased of Ac. 1. 00 land under an agreement of sale dated 26-11-1982 from respondent No. 14. The Land Acquisition Officer 15th respondent herein acquired certain extents lands in Suryaraopeta within the Kakinada municipality for construction of Ammonia Project by National Fertiliser Corporation Ltd. , in the year 1985 including the land of the 14th respondent herein. An award was passed in Award No. 4 of 1989 on 28-5-1989 awarding compensation in respect of an extent of Ac. 26. 55 cts. An award was passed in Award No. 4 of 1989 on 28-5-1989 awarding compensation in respect of an extent of Ac. 26. 55 cts. However as there was a dispute as to who is entitled to receive the amount of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer directed that the amount be deposited before the Sub-Court, Kakinda for disbursement as required under S. 31 of the Act and accordingly a reference was made to the Civil Court under S. 31 (2) of the Act which was numbered as O. P. No. 80 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Court, Kakinada. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner herein filed a suit being O. S. No. 301 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge s Court, Kakinada for declaration of his title in respect of Ac. 1. 00 and by judgment and decree dated 15-2-1999 he was declared as entitled to receive the entire compensation amount. A permanent injunction was also granted restraining the 14th respondent from receiving any amount of compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer or withdrawing any amount in respect of the schedule land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I. A. No. 539 of 1999 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as 15th respondent in the aforesaid O. P. which was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 1-7-1999. Submissions : ( 5 ) MR. M. S. R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, would submit that having regard to the definition of person interested occurring in sub-section (b) of S. 3 of the Act and various other provisions thereof and in particular Sections 9, 11, 19, 20 and 21, it must be held that a person who was not a party in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer is not entitled to be impleaded in a reference for the first time unless he claims his interest under or through such person. ( 6 ) IN support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Grant v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 237 and Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas AIR 1968 SC 366 . ( 7 ) THE learned counsel would submit that the decisions of this Court in Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd. , Hyderabad v. Mohd. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel would submit that the decisions of this Court in Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd. , Hyderabad v. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan AIR 1994 Andh Pra 199, Nalgonda Municipality v. Mohiuddin AIR 1964 Andh Pra 305 and Govind v. Savitribai which have taken a contrary view do not lay down the correct law. Mr. Subrahmanyam would further urge that observations made by the Apex Court in Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 1513 to the effect that Order 1, Rule 10, CPC has no application at all in a proceeding under S. 18 and S. 30 of the Act, must be held to have been made by way of a passing remark and should not be treated as a binding precedent. ( 8 ) MR. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in C. R. P. No. 765 of 1998 on the other hand urged that the fact that his client is a cultivating tenant is admitted as would appear from the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 6211 of 1987. The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Court below cannot be held to have committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that at one point of time, the respondent No. 1 had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer but thereafter as they were not given any notice, they could not take part in the proceedings and as such for no fault on their part, they cannot be debarred from getting themselves impleaded in the reference. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Neyveley Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Spl. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely AIR 1996 SC 1004 and the decision of the Patna High Court in Sakalbaso Kuer v. Brijendra Singh. ( 10 ) MR. V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in CRP No. 3991 of 1999 would inter alia submit that except in a case where a party can be added having regard to the provisions of S. 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC have no application. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) and LAO v. G. C. Rajanna (1999) 2 Andh LT 531 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ajjam Linganna v. LAO/rdo (2001) 1 Andh LT 50 : (2001 AIR SCW 4854 ). Supporting the finding of the Court below, our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel to the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner herein in the suit for specific performance of the contract and it was submitted that having regard to the fact that it had never been the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 14 had been acting on his behalf before the Land Acquisition Officer, only because a plea was raised to the effect that his vendor had promised to get him on the records of the land acquisition proceedings, the same by itself would not be a ground for allowing the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC as, in a case of this nature, S. 146 of the CPC cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel would submit that the Court gets jurisdiction to pass an order only out of an order of reference, and, in that view of the matter, the scope thereof cannot be enlarged. ( 12 ) MR. P. Rajagopala Rao, learned Government Pleader very fairly placed before us various decisions of different High Courts and the Supreme Court. Statutory Provisions ( 13 ) SUB-SECTION (b) of S. 3 of the Act defines a person interested in the following terms : the expression person interested includes all persons claining an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. ( 14 ) THE expression "court" has been defined in terms of sub-section (4) of S. 3 of the Act to mean : principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under this Act. ( 15 ) SECTION 9 of the Act speaks of notice to persons interested who are (1) those who respond to the public notice given by the Collector under sub-section (1) of S. 9, and (2) persons upon whom notices have been served by the collector, inter alia, (i) occupier of the land, (ii) persons known or believed to be interested in the land or the compensation or (iii) their agents within the revenue district. Section 11 of the Act contemplates an enquiry and passing of award by the Collector and apportionment of the award among all persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have appeared before him. Section 18 provides that any person interested and who has not accepted the award can request the Collector to submit for determination of the Court as regards his objections (1) to measurement of the land, (2) amount of compensation, (3) to the persons to whom it is payable or (4) the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. ( 16 ) SECTION 19 provides, inter alia, that while making reference, the Collector shall furnish information to the Court in a statement as regards (1) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon; (2) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land and (3) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under Ss. 5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under S. 11 (4) if the objection is to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. The Court, upon reference, is required to serve notices (1) on the applicants, (2) all persons interested in the objections, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded and (3) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector. ( 17 ) SECTION 21 provides for the scope of the inquiry in every such proceeding before the Court which should be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. ( 17 ) SECTION 21 provides for the scope of the inquiry in every such proceeding before the Court which should be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. Sub-section (2) of S. 21 of the Act provides that before passing an award notices shall be given to all the persons interested. Section 28-A provides that where Court allowed any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under S. 11, then the compensation payable to those persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under S. 4 (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the collector under S. 18 of the Act within three months from the date of the award. ( 18 ) UNDER S. 30, a reference can also be made by the Collector to the Civil Court if there is a dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation or as to the person whom the same is payable. Section 31 provides that when an award is passed under S. 11 of the Act, the Collector shall tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award unless he is prevented by some one or more of the contingencies specified in sub-section (2 ). Section 31 provides that when an award is passed under S. 11 of the Act, the Collector shall tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award unless he is prevented by some one or more of the contingencies specified in sub-section (2 ). Sub-section (2), which is relevant for our purpose reads as under : if they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there by any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the appointment of it, the collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation the Court to which a reference under S. 18 would be submitted : provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount : provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under S. 18 : provided also that nothing herein contained shall effect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. ( 19 ) SECTION 53 provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. ( 20 ) SECTION 54 which provides for appeals reads thus : subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in S. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in Order XLV thereof. Findings : ( 21 ) A proceeding before a Civil Court, whether under Ss. 18 or 30 of the Act, is a judicial proceeding, and the Court is subordinate to the High Court. Findings : ( 21 ) A proceeding before a Civil Court, whether under Ss. 18 or 30 of the Act, is a judicial proceeding, and the Court is subordinate to the High Court. ( 22 ) WHILE making the reference, the Collector, in terms of S. 19 (1) of the Act, is required to furnish a statement of particulars regarding the extent of the land etc. and of the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land acquired and shall also attach a schedule to the said statement giving the particulars of the notices served upon and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested. The objection petition shall also be required to be forwarded to the Court. Forwarding of the said papers becomes the first step in the judicial proceedings. The objections referred to under S. 18 may be in relation to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation payable to persons entitled to such compensation and apportionment of amount of compensating amongst the persons interested. ( 23 ) THE main points of distinction between Ss. 18 and 30 are that while S. 30 leaves the Collector with a power of discretion in the matter, under S. 18, the Collector does not possess such power of discretion. The subject-matter of reference under S. 30 is limited to cases in which Government is not directly interested, whereas S. 18 contains a definite provision for limitation. Further a person who is not a party to the proceedings can ask for a reference under S. 30 who may not be otherwise entitled to in terms of S. 18 of the Act in the circumstances as held in some of the decisions of the Apex Court. ( 24 ) WE may also notice that an objection to the locus standi of a party at whose instance reference has been made may also be questioned in the proceedings before the Civil Court albeit at the earliest possible time. ( 25 ) AS noticed hereinbefore, in C. R. P. No. 3991 of 1999, a reference has been made under S. 30 of the Act and the amount was deposited in the Civil Court as required under S. 31 (2) of the Act. ( 25 ) AS noticed hereinbefore, in C. R. P. No. 3991 of 1999, a reference has been made under S. 30 of the Act and the amount was deposited in the Civil Court as required under S. 31 (2) of the Act. ( 26 ) BEFORE referring to the case laws on the point, we may point out that the interpretation clause contained in S. 3 of the Act, which deals with definitions of various expressions under the Act starts with the words in this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context . Thus, person interested as defined in S. 3 (b) shall have to be given a broader meaning if a situation so warrants. ( 27 ) THE Act doesn t define the expression person interested giving its ordinary or legal meaning. The definition embraces within its fold as persons included therein. The definition of person interested is, therefore, not exhaustive. ( 28 ) IT would, therefore, not be correct to contend that only the persons mentioned therein can be called as persons interested for all intent and purport and no other person can be said to be a person interested . In any event, a person claiming interest in payment of compensation, must, by necessary implication, have an interest in the land sought to be acquired including a right of easement or the amount of compensation. ( 29 ) THE Collector, while preparing an award exercises a quasi-judicial function. Section 11 of the Act enables the Collector to make an enquiry as regards the persons interested in the land. He is not bound to award compensation only in favour of persons who are before him. He may, subject to the result of his enquiry, pass an award apportioning the compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him (emphasis supplied ). The Collector, while forwarding the statement to the Court in terms of S. 19 of the Act is also required to furnish the names of the persons whom he has reason to think as interested in such land. The Collector, while forwarding the statement to the Court in terms of S. 19 of the Act is also required to furnish the names of the persons whom he has reason to think as interested in such land. In terms of S. 21 of the Act, the scope of the enquiry arising under S. 19 shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons likely to be affected by the objection. A person, thus, for all intent and purpot, may be interested in the reference sought by a person although he had not appeared before the Collector. ( 30 ) SECTION 30 confers a wide power upon the Collector to refer a dispute as regards the apportionment of the amount of compensation or where a dispute arises as to persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. The Collector, therefore, has two options viz, (1) to enquire into the rights of the persons interested claiming the compensation in terms of S. 11 (which incidentally used the word shall ) or (2) refer the same to the decision of the Court. ( 31 ) THE reference under the Land Acquisition Act is of two types. One is as regards the quantum of compensation and the other is as regards the entitlement or apportionment thereof. Two different procedures have been provided therefor. ( 32 ) THE power of reference under S. 30 is wider than the power of reference under S. 18. Can it in this situation be said that a person who did not appear before the Land Acquisition Officer has no locus standi to get himself impleaded as a party? The answer to the same must be rendered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. A person may not appear either having not been issued any notice or otherwise before the Collector and still his interest may be protected by the Collector and an award can be passed in his favour. However, an enquiry made by the Collector under S. 11 of the Act cannot be held to have such a repercussion with those who had not been found to be interested in the claims as they would not have say at all. However, an enquiry made by the Collector under S. 11 of the Act cannot be held to have such a repercussion with those who had not been found to be interested in the claims as they would not have say at all. However, a subsequent discovery or question of interest as regard the entitlement to receive the compensation or a part of it by reason of a subsequent event, in our opinion, may give rise to a situation where an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC may be maintainable. The devolution of such interest may not be confined to the situation contained in S. 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, more so, when a question of title is involved. ( 33 ) THE issue may be considered from another angle also. A determination of the dispute between two parties would attract the principles of res judicata. The judgment rendered in a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act would be a judgment within the meaning of Ss. 40, 42 and 44 of the Indian Evidence Act. ( 34 ) THE provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are attracted in a civil proceeding. ( 35 ) CAN it then be said having regard to Ss. 4 and 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure vis-a-vis S. 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC has no role to play in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act? Can a distinction be made as regards the applicability of Order 1, Rule 10, IPC between those who strictly come within the purview of S. 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure and those who do not? ( 36 ) THE Court has also to bear in mind the basic principle that a Court of Law would not encourage multiplicity of proceedings. The Code of Civil Procedure being principally connected with the procedural aspects, the Code shall discourage endless litigation. ( 37 ) FURTHERMORE, having regard to the fact that no period of limitation has been provided and also having regard to the interpretive role of the Court vis-a-vis the larger public interest, the Court may not ask a party to seek for a further reference under S. 30 of the Act to achieve the same goal. ( 37 ) FURTHERMORE, having regard to the fact that no period of limitation has been provided and also having regard to the interpretive role of the Court vis-a-vis the larger public interest, the Court may not ask a party to seek for a further reference under S. 30 of the Act to achieve the same goal. The fact situation may not also be ignored by the Court that when a party who seeks himself to be impleaded obtains an order of reference, by that time, the reference pending before the Court may be adjudicated upon which would give rise to a situation where the reference may have to be reopened and a possibility of conflicting decisions may arise having regard to the materials which might have been produced in the earlier reference. ( 38 ) IN a reference under S. 30, not only the question of title, but also the status of the parties may be involved. Order 1, Rule 10 confers a wide power upon the Court. A party may be added by the Court if he satisfies the provisions specified therein or the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, suo motu add a party or may strike off the name of a party in the interest of justice. Although normally a plaintiff has more say in the matter of impleadment of parties, an order of impleadment by a Court of law, in relation to a question where the status of the persons is involved, a person may have a right to be impleaded. ( 39 ) THE presence of a party must be found to be necessary in order to enable the Court to adjudicate the questions which arise out of the lis. The satisfaction of the Court is necessary to the effect that he is a necessary and proper party. The concept that the approach of the Courts that under no situation a party would be considered to be a person aggrieved or person interested either for the purpose of preference of appela or otherwise, has undergone a sea change. The satisfaction of the Court is necessary to the effect that he is a necessary and proper party. The concept that the approach of the Courts that under no situation a party would be considered to be a person aggrieved or person interested either for the purpose of preference of appela or otherwise, has undergone a sea change. ( 40 ) IN Union of India v. Sher Singh (1993) 1 SCC 608 : (1993 AIR SCW 701), it was held that the definition of person interested being of inclusive one, the same must be liberally construed so as to implead persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either to the title or to the quantum of compensation. The Apex Court overruled a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulbhushan Kumar and Co. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 Punj and Hry 55. ( 41 ) IN Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (1995) 1 SCC 221 , the Apex Court followed the decisions in Sher Singh (supra) and in Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Franics Victor Coutinho (1980) 3 SCC 223 and applied the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC stating: the consistent thread that runs through all the decisions of this Court starting from Himalayan Tiles case, AIR 1980 SC 1118 , is that the beneficiary, i. e. , local authority or company, a co-op. society registered under the relevant State law, or statutory authority is a person interested to determine just and proper compensation for the acquired land and is an aggrieved person. It flows from it that the beneficiary has the right to be heard by the Collector or the Court. If the compensation is enhanced it is entitled to canvass its correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the Collector. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek leave of the Court and file the appeal against the enhanced award and decree of the Civil Court under S. 26 or of the judgment and decree under S. 54 or is entitled to file writ petition under Art. 226 and assail its legality or correctness. If it is not made a party, it is entitled to seek leave of the Court and file the appeal against the enhanced award and decree of the Civil Court under S. 26 or of the judgment and decree under S. 54 or is entitled to file writ petition under Art. 226 and assail its legality or correctness. When the award made under S. 11 of the Collector is vitiated by fraud, collusion or corruption, the beneficiary is entitled to challenge it in the writ petition apart from the settled law that the conduct of the Collector or Civil Judge is amenable to disciplinary enquiry and appropriate action. These are very valuable and salutary rights. Moreover, in the language of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, in the absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher compensation, no complete and effectual determination of binding just and proper compensation to the acquired land would be made. So it is concomitantly a proper party if not a necessary party to the proceedings under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The denial of the right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 42 ) THE Apex Court having regard to the various provisions of Land Acquisition Act particularly Ss. 18, 54, 11 and 26 observ-ed : as a necessary or proper party affected by the determination of higher compensation, the beneficiary must have a right to challenge the correctness of the award made by the Reference Court under S. 18 or in appeal under S. 54 etc. Considered from this perspective we are of the considered view that the appellant-company is an interested person within the meaning of S. 3 (b) of the Act and is also a proper party, if not a necessary party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC. The High Court had committed manifest error of law in holding that the appellant is not a person interested. The orders of the High Court are accordingly set aside. ( 43 ) THE submission of the learned counsel to the effect that in Neyveley Lignite Corpn. The High Court had committed manifest error of law in holding that the appellant is not a person interested. The orders of the High Court are accordingly set aside. ( 43 ) THE submission of the learned counsel to the effect that in Neyveley Lignite Corpn. Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court was concerned only with a matter falling under S. 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition act vannot be accepted in view of the following observations : we cannot limit the operation of S. 3 (b) in conjunction with sub-section (2) of S. 50 of the Act within a narrow compass. The right given under sub-section (2) of S. 50 is addition to and not in substituting of or in derogation to all the incidental, logical and consequential rights flowing from the concept of fair and just procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice. Section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act enables the local authority or Company concerned at whose instance the land was been acquired to appear and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The logical corollary of the said provision in the event the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is to be accepted in case where the local authorities or the Company had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer, it must be held that it is dissentitled from appearing in a reference at a subsequent stage. The decision of the Apex Court in Neyvely Lignite (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the company or the local authority shall continue to be person interested and/or person aggrieved even if they have not appeared either before the Land Acquisition Collector or before the Civil Court in reference. In a given case, a person may not even know that the lands are going to be acquired and thus, he will not be in a position to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector. Even a notice might not have been served upon him. It would be harsh if a person who had been kept in dark or who has been a victim of some fraudulent act, is not impleaded as a party. In such a situation, we are of the opinion, that interest of justice demands that he should be impleaded as a party. It would be harsh if a person who had been kept in dark or who has been a victim of some fraudulent act, is not impleaded as a party. In such a situation, we are of the opinion, that interest of justice demands that he should be impleaded as a party. The procedures as is well known are only hand-maids of justice and they can suitably be moulded to do complete justice between the parties. ( 44 ) IN National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Raj Kishore (1996) 3 SCC 44 , it was held : though notice was served on the respondents, no one has appeared for the first respondent-claimant. The controversy is no longer res integra. They are covered by the judgment of this Court in U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995) 2 SCC 326. In that view, the appellant being a beneficiary is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the pending proceedings in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Angul. ( 45 ) IN U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), Agrawal, J. speaking for the majority observed : at this stage also S. 50 (2) of the L. A. Act envisages that the local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence before the Court. This right is independent of the right that is available to be local authority to appear and adduce evidence before the Collector. Even though the local authority had failed to appear before the Collector in spite of notice or had appeared in response to notice and had adduced evidence the local authority may consider it necessary to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the person who has sought the reference and to defend the award made by the Collector. Failure to give notice at this stage would result in denial of the said right of the local authority. Before we consider the remedy that is available for seeking redress against the denial of this right we may examine whether the local authority has a right to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference Court. That raises the question whether the local authority can be regarded as necessary or a proper party. Before we consider the remedy that is available for seeking redress against the denial of this right we may examine whether the local authority has a right to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the reference Court. That raises the question whether the local authority can be regarded as necessary or a proper party. The law is well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding. ( 46 ) HOWEVER, it is true that in Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 1513 , the Apex Court held that the procedure prescribed under Ss. 13 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. In that case, a reference was made only by one co-sharer. He was not representing the entire body of co-sharers. No valid reference was made and such reference was also not made within the period of limitation. In that situation it was observed: (para 4) we accept the finding of the High Court that the appellant had not made any application under S. 18 though the appellant has asserted that she did make an application but no evidence has been placed before the High Court or in this Court. Thus, it is difficult to accept that such an application was in fact made before the Land Acquisition Officer within the limitation prescribed under S. 18 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant had not filed any application, as required under S. 18 (1) read with S. 18 (2) of the Act. Section 53 does not apply to the facts of the case. The procedure prescribed under Ss. 18 and 30 is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC Order 1, Rule 10, CPC would apply to implead a necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary or proper parties who may be bound by the decision. That question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. That question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. ( 47 ) THE binding precedents of the decisions in Himalayan Tiles (supra) or Neyvely Lignites (supra) were not cited. The Apex Court did not advert to the questions raised in the said applications or the questions which have been considered hereinbefore. ( 48 ) INAJJAM Linganna (supra), the parties applied directly to the reference Court for impleadment and sought for enhancement of the compensation under S. 18 of the Act. In that situation, it was held that they should have approached for reference in the first instance. The Apex Court observed that appellant No. 1 made such application. In that case before the Apex Court, the parties had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector. Thus, the Apex Court has also directed impleadment of one of the parties who had only made prayer for reference although she had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector. ( 49 ) ALTHOUGH various decisions have been cited at the Bar, it is not necessary for us to refer the same. In our opinion, the questions raised herein are covered by the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions. We may however refer to the decision in Indraj v. Shamlat Deh Patti Jattan, 1993 LACC 430 wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken the same view. ( 50 ) IN Ushodaya Publications v. Commissioner, M. C. H. (2001) 2 Andh LT 662 the right of a lessee in a case of land acquisition was recognised stating that : there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the said consent granted by the owner would not be binding upon the lessee and in that view of the matter the 1st respondent had no right to take forcible possession of the land in question, relying on the purported consent obtained by it from the petitioner s lessor without taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as thereby the petitioner shall be deprived of its own valuable right. The 1st respondent, in our considered opinion, deprived the petitioner of the said right without taking recourse to law. Such a valuable right cannot be held to be non est only because of the procedural and technical irregularities. The 1st respondent, in our considered opinion, deprived the petitioner of the said right without taking recourse to law. Such a valuable right cannot be held to be non est only because of the procedural and technical irregularities. ( 51 ) FURTHER more, in C. R. P. No. 765 of 1998 (Repaka Bhyravamurthy v. Muppidi Venkataraju) a distinction has been made between the amount of compensation and apportionment. Substantive right of a party cannot be allowed to be obliterated only because of the procedural provisions. ( 52 ) IN Andhra Area, the right of cultivating tenant by reason of A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 is in perpetuity in terms of S. 10 thereof. He has also a right of pre-emption in terms of Section 15. ( 53 ) IN State of West Bengal v. Anil Chandra Choudhury (2000) 1 LACC 58 : (1999 AIHC 4002) wherein one of us (S. B. Sinha, C. J.) was a member, the Calcutta High Court was considering a case where possession had been taken without taking recourse to the provisions of the Act. It was in that situation the Court observed : right to hold that property is a constitutional right as envisaged under Art. 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. No person can be deprived of his right to hold a property except in accordance with law. The fact remains that in terms of the judgment delivered by K. M. Yusuf, J. the petitioner has been deprived of such a right and thus he is entitled to be compensated. The question that such an order of compensation can be passed to determine and pay to the petitioner by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra as by reason of its acts of commission or omission the State must be held to be guilty of commisison of constitutional tort in view of the fact that the petitioner has been deprived of his lawful right declared in his favour by a judgment of this Court. ( 54 ) SO far as C. R. P. no. 3991 of 1999 is concerned, this Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot go into the merits of the matter. ( 54 ) SO far as C. R. P. no. 3991 of 1999 is concerned, this Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot go into the merits of the matter. The decree passed in favour of the respondents would clearly shows that the same was to the effect that instead and place of obtaining a decree for specific performance of contract, they would be entitled to the entire amount of compensation. For all intent and purport, although they had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector the respondent as the decree holder is the successor of respondent No. 14. In a situation of this nature, the question as to whether S. 146 of CPC has any application or whether the respondent No. 14 acted as his agent pales into insignificance. ( 55 ) A person may not be entitled to be impleaded as a party only for the purpose of enhancement of compensation, but if any other question arises which touches the issue of his entitlement or apportionment to the amount of compensation, the same may be considered by reason of an application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC. ( 56 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that C. R. P. No. 765 of 1998 should be dismissed and C. R. P. No. 3991 of 1999 should be allowed. The questions are answered accordingly. Order accordingly.