JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. All these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent have been filed by the Central Coalfields Limited against the common judgment dated 8th January, 2004 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 237 to 272, 274, 276 to 284 of 1994 (R), whereby all these First Appeals filed by the State of Bihar have been dismissed. 2. The entire facts lie in a narrow compass. For the purpose of Bachra project of the appellant-M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, 59.45 acres of land of different classification situated in village Bachra within the Hazaribagh district were acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In this connection a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.12.1965 and thereafter in the land acquisition proceeding, the Collector determined the compensation. The different awardees challenged the quantum of compensation assessed by the Collector which resulted in reference of the dispute to the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Judge gave an award enhancing the amount of compensation so fixed by the Collector. The State of Bihar challenged the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge by filing aforementioned First Appeals before this Court. The learned single Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties before the Land Acquisition Judge and the nature and character of the land, came to the conclusion that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Judge is perfectly legal and proper. Consequently all these First Appeals have been dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeals by the appellant-Central Coalfields Limited. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Central Coalfields Limited assailed the impugned judgment and award on the ground inter alia, that the appellant-Central Coalfields Limited was not made party in the case before the Reference Court arising out of land acquisition proceeding and no opportunity was given to the appellant to contest the proceeding on the quantum of compensation. Learned Counsel relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi , submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge is fit to be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Learned Counsel relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi , submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge is fit to be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that at no point of time, the appellant-Central Coalfields Limited ever raised any objection and it allowed the State of Bihar to contest the proceeding on their behalf. According to the learned counsel, therefore, there is no merit in these appeals. The learned Counsel also argued on the point of maintainability of these appeals. 4. The admitted facts are that before the Land Acquisition Judge in the reference proceeding under Section 14 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State of Bihar contested the proceeding and examined witnesses on the question of valuation of the land. The Land Acquisition Judge after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, enhanced the quantum of compensation. It is also admitted fact that the State of Bihar preferred appeals challenging the judgment and award of the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh. The learned single Judge re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Judge is supported by documentary evidence. The learned Single Judge further found that in respect of similar land of the same locality, the compensation was determined and the same was challenged by the State of Bihar in First Appeal Nos. 83 to 107 of 1992 and those appeals were also dismissed. 5. In the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi , their Lordships held that the local authority or company for which land is acquired is a proper party in the proceedings before the reference Court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party wherein it can defend the determination of amount of compensation assessed by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount. However, their Lordships further observed in para 7: In the event of enhancement of amount of compensation by the reference Court, if the Government does not file an appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. 6. However, their Lordships further observed in para 7: In the event of enhancement of amount of compensation by the reference Court, if the Government does not file an appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. 6. In the instant case, as noticed above, the State of Bihar not only contested the proceeding for enhancement of the compensation before the Land Acquisition Judge by adducing evidence, but also challenged the judgment and award by filing appeals before this Court. The appellant-Company did not prefer any appeal, rather on their behalf the State of Bihar contested the proceeding. For the first time, these Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the appellant-Company and even the leave of the Court has not been obtained by filing any application to that effect. Besides the above, so far merit of the appeal is concerned we have perused the judgment passed by the learned single Judge and found* that the learned single Judge after re appreciating the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Judge was just and reasonable. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. D.P. Singh, J. I agree.