JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, ‘the Act’) filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lanjigarh Road-Junagarh Rail Link Project, Bhawanipatna challenging the award dated 22.11.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No.63 of 2001. 2. On the basis of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, Ac.0.60 decimals of Berna kisam land appertaining to Plot Nos.204 & 205 under Khata No.77 of village-Udaypur in the dis¬trict of Kalahandi belonging to the respondent No.1 was acquired for construction of Lanjigarh Road-Junagarh Rail Link Project, as per Government Notification No.16292 dated 08.4.1996 and declara¬tion No.3473 dated 21.1.1997. After conducting necessary inquiry the appellant awarded a compensation of Rs.13,175.33 paise in favour of the claimant (respondent No.1), who received that amount under protest claiming higher compensation. On the prayer of the claimants the matter was referred to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication of the dispute regarding quantum of compensation. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna received evidence of the parties, assessed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre and directed compensation accordingly. Challenging the said enhancement the present appeal has been preferred. 3. During pendency of this appeal the Union of India represented by General Manager, East Coast Railway, Chandrasek¬harpur was permitted to be impleaded as respondent No.2. Mr. Pal, appearing for Union of India submits that the award was passed behind the back of respondent No.2, who actually has to pay the compensation and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and non est in the eye of law. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl.Standing Counsel challenges the impugned order on the ground that it is based on surmise and conjecture. Mr. Mund appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order in every respect. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for all the parties concede that the present matter is squarely covered under the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. v. Bihar and others, (2004) 12 SCC 96 and the observation of this Court in the case of Special L.A., Officer Lanjigarh Road-Junagarh Rail Link Project, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi v. Prabhabati Majhi and others, 2006 (II) OLR 720 . 6. 6. On perusal of the record, it is seen that in fact the present case is covered by the ratio laid down in the above noted cases. So following the same ratio this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the Union of India represented through the East Coast Railways is a “person interested” because ulti¬mately it has to pay the compensation amount for the land ac¬quired. Since the reference Court did not notice such interested person before passing the impugned order in the reference pro¬ceeding, the order enhancing the quantum of compensation becomes unsustainable. The impugned order, is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the reference Court for fresh determination of the quantum of compensation after giving an opportunity to the respondent No.2 to participate in the proceed¬ing and adduce evidence in support of its plea and also giving opportunity to the respondent No.1 to adduce rebuttal evidence. Since the matter is old, the appellant and respondents are di¬rected to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No.63 of 2001 on 26th March, 2007 to take necessary instruction. Learned Civil Judge is di¬rected to dispose of the M.J.C. No.63 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months of receipt of this order and the LCR. 7. The appeal is allowed. In the peculiar circumstances, the parties are to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.