Judgment :- (1.) The instant case arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is directed against Order dated 12th August, 2003 passed by learned 14th Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, 6th Additional Special Judge, in L. A. Case No. 3 of 2001. (2.) Grievances as ventilated on behalf of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows : (3.) The land measuring about 88 acres appertaining to Mouza Rajapur, J. L. No. 23, R.S. No. 14, Touzi No. 109, old Khatian No. 9, present Khatian No. 10, Plot No. 981 and present Plot No. 1028 originally belonged to one Sarat Chandra Bose, since deceased. He was in possession of such land and used to pay rents and taxes to the authority concerned. He died intestate leaving behind his only son Jogesh Chandra Bose as his only legal heir. (4.) Jogesh Chandra Bose executed a lease agreement followed by a registered deed of lease for a period of ninety-nine years in favour of the plaintiff in respect of such land. Possession was duly handed over by taking a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs only and subject to the condition that the annual rent amounting to Rs. 1510/-would be paid regularly to the said Jogesh Chandra Bose. (5.) The State Government by way of two different acquisition proceedings acquired the entire 88 acres of land without giving any prior intimation to the petitioner. It was in connection with requisition of land by the Housing Department, Government of West Bengal. The petitioner filed two separate writ petitions being C. O. No. 12343 (W) of 1992 and C. O. No. 17663 (W) of 1993 challenging the two acquisition proceedings. (6.) In C. O. No. 12343 (W) of 1992, an order was passed by the Honble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee directing the petitioner to file a suit as disputed questions of facts were involved. The petitioner then filed a suit being Title Suit No. 328 of 1993 before the learned 1 st Court of Munsif, Alipore. The present respondents were parties in the said suit. The said suit was finally disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at by the parties. The petitioner was entitled to get 20% of the compensation money as per said settlement. The petitioner made several representations before the L. A. Collector claiming his share of the compensation money but to no avail. The said suit was finally disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at by the parties. The petitioner was entitled to get 20% of the compensation money as per said settlement. The petitioner made several representations before the L. A. Collector claiming his share of the compensation money but to no avail. It could be learnt that the L. A. Collector finally passed an award declaring the share of compensation of the parties and paid compensation money to all the claimants except the petitioner. (7.) Some of the parties then filed an application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act and sought of enhancement of compensation. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for allowing him to be added as a party in that proceeding. The petitioner in support of such application claimed that he was entitled to get 20% of compensation money but nothing was paid to him. The learned L.A. Judge by order dated 12.08.2003 dismissed the said application for addition of the party. (8.) Then petitioner claimed that the purported award was passed behind his back though he was a necessary party in the proceeding. It was urged that question of apportionment of amount of compensation was involved. (9.) In the circumstances, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside of the said order dated 12.08.2003 and petitioner sought to be added as a party so that he can claim his share of the compensation. (10.) Such application was seriously contested by the O. P. No. 1, lla Roy Chowdhury, on the following grounds : (11.) lla Roy Chowdhury and others were the absolute owners of the disputed land measuring about 88 acres and they were in possession of such land at the time of acquisition of the same by two separate acquisition proceedings. The Government of West Bengal after proper enquiry and on being satisfied with regard to the right and title of O. P. No. 1 including her other co-sharers declared award and paid compension money to O. P No. 1 and other co-sharers. Amount of compensation being extremely low, without any regard to the market price, application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed for reference and enhancement of the said amount. Amount of compensation being extremely low, without any regard to the market price, application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed for reference and enhancement of the said amount. The reference cases were registered as L A. Case Nos. 3 to 35, 38 and 39 of 2001 .The Acquiring and Requiring body have been contesting the same. Those were subsequently sent to learned 6th L. A. Judge-cum-14th Additional District Judge, Alipore. The present petitioner, Bana Behari Chowdhury, came with an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for addition of party. The said application was resisted by the present O. P. No. 1 and her co-sharers on the ground that the said applicant. Bana Behari Chowdhury, is a stranger and has no locus standi to be added as a party in the said reference cases which were initiated at the instance of erstwhile owner lla Roy Chowdhury and others. (12.) The facts and circumstances of the case raise the important issue as to whether or not the petitioner deserves to be added as a party in the reference cases. (13.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner by virtue of lease deed executed in his favour has definitie right and interest in the disputed property, he had been totally ignored and consciously left out. It is submitted that the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation being involved, it is necessary that the petitioner be added as a party in the pending proceeding. (14.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas and Ors., reported in AIR 1968 SC 366 , submitted that the petitioner has a legitimate claim in the compensation awarded in view of the earlier agreement. So, he has a right to be heard, as he is a "person interested". (15.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that complete and effective adjudication demands that the petitioner be added as a party in the reference cases. Reference was made to the decision in the case of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parisad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors., reported in 1995 (2) SCC 326, in this context. (15.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that complete and effective adjudication demands that the petitioner be added as a party in the reference cases. Reference was made to the decision in the case of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parisad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors., reported in 1995 (2) SCC 326, in this context. (16.) It was further submitted that when the question that touches the issue of entitlement or apportionment, is raised, it may be considered by reason of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. (17.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the contesting Opposite Party submitted that the revisional application is bad for non-joinder of parties as the referring claimants in L. A. Case No. 4 to 35, 38 and 39 of 2001 (V) have not been made parties though the said cases are being heard analogously. It was further submitted that the petitioner having no right, title and interest is a stranger to the property in question. Besides, the basis of the claim is an agreement, which cannot bind the Acquiring, or the Requiring body, nor the State of West Bengal can have anything to do with it. Moreover, the suit or the legal proceeding was dismissed for non-prosecution, thereby leaving no scope for any claim in the present proceedings. It was submitted on behalf of O. P. No. 1 that an application for addition of party filed by the present petitioner in a writ proceeding was rejected by learned Single Bench of this Court. (18.) It was next submitted that procedure prescribed under Sections 18, 30 of Land Acquisition Act is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code learned Counsel for O. P. No. 1 sought to derive support and strength form the decision in the case of Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1513 . Such view was also taken by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh in the case reported in AIR 1994 AP 199 . (19.) Referring to the decision in the case of Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikash Pradhikaran, reported in 2003 (5) SCC 561 , it was submitted that a reference Court has no jurisdiction to decide a matter not referred to it. (19.) Referring to the decision in the case of Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikash Pradhikaran, reported in 2003 (5) SCC 561 , it was submitted that a reference Court has no jurisdiction to decide a matter not referred to it. (20.) Attention of the Court was invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Manzur Ahmed and Ors. v. Rajlakshmi Dasi and Ors., reported in 60 CWN 702, wherein it was held that "where the right to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act had become barred, a person wishing to raise new question not covered by the reference made at the instance of the other parties, cannot be added as a party on his application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code". (21.) Such view also finds support in the case of Hashim Ibrahim Saleji and Ors. v. The Secretary of State for India in Council and Ors., reported in XXXI CWN 384. (22.) The stand taken by the petitioner was sought to be demolished by learned Counsel for O.P. No. 1 who while referring to the decision in the case of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, 1995 (2) SCC 326 contended that the present petitioner cannot have anything to do with the reference case, as he was in no way involved in the proceeding before the L. A. Collector. (23.) It was submitted on behalf of the State of West Bengal that the particular proceeding is binding between the awardees and collector. According to learned Counsel for the State of West Bengal it was open to the petitioner to dispute the award on the ground that it was not declared against actual person, or that apportionment should have been done considering his interest in the award but there cannot be any rational basis for adding him in the pending reference cases. According to learned Counsel for the State of West Bengal it was open to the petitioner to dispute the award on the ground that it was not declared against actual person, or that apportionment should have been done considering his interest in the award but there cannot be any rational basis for adding him in the pending reference cases. (24.) Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 clearly lays down that any person who has not accepted the award may be written application to the collector, require that the matter may be referred to by the collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection relates to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable or, the apportionment of the compensation money amongst the persons interested. It is further stated that the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken :- Provided that every such application shall be made : (a) If the person making it was present or represented before the collector at the time when he made the award within six weeks from the date of the collectors award. (b) In other cases, within six months from the receipt of the notice from the collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the collectors award whichever period shall first expire. (25.) It is for the collector to serve notice to the persons interested and in this case, the collector after compliance with all the formalities and completion of all enquiries served notice on the recorded owners and also published notice. But the petitioner did not raise his voice of protest nor did he seek to assert his right before the L. A. Collector. He was having no right, title or interest in the land in question and his claim is based on alleged agreement which could not bind the State of West Bengal in any manner whatsoever. (26.) It may be that the present petitioner was moving from post to pillar and pillar to post while attempting to establish his claim. But the civil suits and the legal proceedings initiated at his instance finally did not decide any right in his favour. (27.) The facts and circumstances of the Sunderlal Case, as referred to earlier, are significantly different from those of the present case. But the civil suits and the legal proceedings initiated at his instance finally did not decide any right in his favour. (27.) The facts and circumstances of the Sunderlal Case, as referred to earlier, are significantly different from those of the present case. In this case, the petitioners grievance essentially relates to his claim of the 20% compensation money on the basis of the settlement. As mentioned earlier, none of the suits or the proceedings could really improve the status of the present petitioner. By no stretch of imagination it can be said, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that the present petitioner is a necessary party in the reference cases. The expression "person interested" cannot be so stretched as to accommodate the petitioner in that category. (28.) Learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order, observed as follows :-"The jurisdiction of the Court has been defined under Section 20 of the L. A. Act and this Court is not a Court of Appeal over learned L. A. Collector and is not also entitled to go beyond the reference. The learned L. A. Collector may refer the matter to Court for determination either by under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the L. A. Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was not awarded any compensation by the learned L. A. Collector, 24-Parganas (S), Alipore and accordingly, his case was not referred to Court for adjudication. It is thus, clearly proved from the materials-on-record that the right, title and interest petitioners predecessor-in-interest in the property in dispute was disallowed by the competent Civil Court by judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 240 of 1988 on 11.03.1997." (29.) Following this the learned Trial Court held that the petitioner is not a person interested in the proceeding as defined under Section 3(b) of the L. A. Act. (30.) After careful consideration of all relevant facts and materials and having regard to the discussion, as made above, this Court is of the view that there is no jurisdictional error in the order under challenge. As such, no interference is called for. (31.) Accordingly, the present application being C. O. No. 1816 of 2003 be dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously.