JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. J. T. Gilda. learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S. S. Wandile, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. None appeared for respondent No.2, though served. 3. The petitioner by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by Ad hoc District Judge-3, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No.71/2001 whereby the petitioner's application for grant of permission to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 came to be rejected. 4. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is a Corporation constituted under the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1997 and the same is an acquiring body. The land of respondent No.2 came to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the award was passed by respondent No.4. Respondent No.2, thereafter, filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming that compensation granted by respondent No.4 in Land Acquisition Case No.71/2001 is inadequate and claimed enhancement of compensation. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are joined as non applicant Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid reference. The petitioner, being an acquiring body, came to be impleaded as non applicant No.3 in the above said reference. The petitioner, on being joined as non applicant No.3, filed its written statement opposing the claim of respondent No.2. 5. On the basis of pleadings, parties went to the trial. Respondent No.2-claimant has filed the evidence-on-affidavit and, thereafter, he and his witnesses were cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also filed their evidence on affidavit and respondent No.2-claimant was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Counsel for the petitioner, before cross-examination of the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 by respondent No.2 requested the Court for permission to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Court did not grant permission and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file written application on 18.04.2007 for grant of permission to cross examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is pertinent to note that counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has given no objection for grant of permission as prayed for by the petitioner. 6. The Court did not grant permission and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file written application on 18.04.2007 for grant of permission to cross examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is pertinent to note that counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has given no objection for grant of permission as prayed for by the petitioner. 6. The learned Ad hoc District Judge, Nagpur, who heard and disposed of the above said application by his order dated 23.04.2007 observed that the interest of the petitioner is not separate than that of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Defence of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 is common and, therefore, the petitioner has no adverse interest-against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Consequently, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the order, which is impugned in the present petition. 7. Mr. Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner is a statutory body. He further submitted that separate written statements are filed by the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4. They are being represented by separate counsel. Their pleadings are also different. He further submitted that bare perusal of the evidence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their witnesses shows that the same is contrary to and against the interest of the petitioner and, therefore, in his submission the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Gilda, to substantiate his contention, relied on the judgment in Mrs. Des Raj Chopra and others Vs. Puran Mal and others, AIR 1975 Delhi 109 and Shri. Shrikant R. Shirdokar Vs. Smt. Xabirabi Shaik Kadar and others, 1997 AIHC 1363. 8. Ms. Wandile, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 does not deny that no objection to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was given in the trial Court. However, she submitted that the petitioner is not legally entitled to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. She further submitted that there is no pleading by the petitioner in the written statement about adversity. She also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 has deposed adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 9. She further submitted that there is no pleading by the petitioner in the written statement about adversity. She also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 has deposed adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the judgments cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. The written statement of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 are distinct and they are being represented by the separate counsel. In Paragraph No.4 of the application for grant of permission to cross-examine, the petitioner has averred that the evidence of witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 does not disclose the particulars considered by him in deciding the compensation of the land in question and, therefore, in order to elucidate the material considered and the manner of determination of compensation of the land in question it is necessary to cross-examine witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is stated in para 2 that respondent Nos.3 and 4 deposed against interest of petitioner. This averment in the application is not at all denied either by respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 or by respondent No.2 before the trial Court as well as before this Court by filing rejoinder. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge of the trial Court erred in observing that there is common defence of all the non applicants and the evidence of witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 10. The object of leading evidence and cross-examination is to find out the truth. The cross-examination assists the Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. The petitioner is a statutory acquiring Body. Though the land is acquired by passing an award by respondent No.4, the amount of compensation as well as enhanced compensation, that may be granted by the Court to respondent No.2, is required to be paid by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get a fair and reasonable opportunity to oppose the claim of respondent No.2 for enhanced compensation and to put forth his defence. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get a fair and reasonable opportunity to oppose the claim of respondent No.2 for enhanced compensation and to put forth his defence. For that purpose, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to bring on record the particulars considered by the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in deciding the compensation of the land in question. 11. As already stated, it is the case of the petitioner that the witnesses of respondent No.3 has deposed contrary to the interest of the petitioner, which is not specifically denied by respondent Nos.3 and 4. In my opinion, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be permitted to cross-examine respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their witnesses. 12. In Mrs. Des Raj Chopra and others Vs. Puran Mal and others (supra) the Delhi High Court was considering the case in which the eviction application filed impleading 1 alleged sub-tenants as respondents. The s learned Single Judge held that the right of one f of them to cross-examine the witnesses produced by another cannot be refused merely on the ground of common defence. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court permitted one sub-tenant to cross-examine the witness of another though there was common defence. In the present case, as already observed, the petitioner's objection that deposition of witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is contrary to the petitioner's interest. Therefore, in my view, there is no reason to refuse the permission to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 13. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Shri. Shrikant R. Shirdokar Vs. Smt. Xabirabi Shaik Kadar and others (supra) after considering the provisions of Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the right to cross-examine the witness by party does not solely depend upon the pleadings of the said witness and it also depends upon the other factors which normally take place in different stages of trial. The learned Judge further held that merely on the pleadings alone adversity cannot be determined and there may be stages during the trial that one party may become adverse to the interest of the other. The learned Judge further held that merely on the pleadings alone adversity cannot be determined and there may be stages during the trial that one party may become adverse to the interest of the other. I am of the view that ratio of the judgment of the learned Single Judge can squarely be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case especially when the case of the petitioner is that the deposition of witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is contrary to the interest of the petitioner assuming that defence of the these respondents are similar. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1004 held that beneficiary i.e. local authority or company, a co-operative 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 was further held that the beneficiary has right to be heard by the Collector or the Courts. If the compensation is enhanced, it is entitled to canvass its correctness by filing an appeal or defend the award of the Co1lector. If it is not made party, it is entitled to seek leave of the Court and file an appeal against the award enhancing compensation. The Apex Court also observed that these are very valuable and solitary rights. It is also held that the local authority or Company or statutory body may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. In view of above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to protect its interests, as the amount of enhanced compensation, if any, is required to be paid by it and for that purpose it is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 15. I am also of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be cause to respondent Nos.3 and 4, if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, on the contrary the petitioner will get a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence. 16. In the result, the petition succeeds. Order below Exh.-42 in L.A.C. No.71/2001 passed by Ad hoc District Judge3, Nagpur on 23.04.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, the petition succeeds. Order below Exh.-42 in L.A.C. No.71/2001 passed by Ad hoc District Judge3, Nagpur on 23.04.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted permission to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Nos.3 & 4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.