ORDER Leave granted. 2. Delay in filing substitution is condoned. 3. Application for brining the legal representatives on record is allowed. 4. These appeals arise out of acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1966 Act”]. The first respondent-Board was constituted under the 1966 Act. On 05.02.2010, a Notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 28 of the 1966 Act notifying lands totally admeasuring 4993.65 acres specifically for acquisition for the purposes of development of respondent No.3 Company [Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd.]/beneficiary Company. The Final Notification under sub-Section (4) of Section 28 of the 1966 Act was issued on 04.05.2010 which again specifically mentions that the lands subject matter of the Notification are being acquired for the benefit of the beneficiary Company. As a result of the Notification under sub-Section (4) of Section 28, the total land admeasuring 4864.64 acres vested in the State Government by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 28. 5. The second respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer made an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) determining market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Even the Award specifically mentions that the acquisition was for the project of the beneficiary Company. 6. The owners invoked Section 18 of the 1894 Act and accordingly, a Reference was made to the Civil Court. On the application made by the owners, the beneficiary Company was impleaded in the Reference proceedings under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The Land Acquisition Officer was already a party to the Reference. 7. In exercise of the powers under Section 31 of the 1966 Act, the State Government appointed an Officer of the Board to exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner for determination of the compensation payable. The Officer was designated as the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Evidence was adduced before the Reference Court by the owners as well as by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. After completion of the recording of evidence, an application was made by the beneficiary Company contending that the Board was a necessary party. The Reference Court rejected the said application and proceeded to pass an Award granting enhancement in compensation. 8. Separate appeals were preferred by the Board before the High Court. After completion of the recording of evidence, an application was made by the beneficiary Company contending that the Board was a necessary party. The Reference Court rejected the said application and proceeded to pass an Award granting enhancement in compensation. 8. Separate appeals were preferred by the Board before the High Court. The main contention raised by the Board in the appeals was that by virtue of Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act as amended for the State of Karnataka, it was entitled to receive a notice of the Reference under Section 18. By accepting the said contention, the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to set aside the Award made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and remanded the References back to the Reference Court for deciding afresh after notifying the Board in accordance Clause [c] of Section 20(2) of the 1894 Act. 9. The submission of the appellants is that the Board was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the Reference proceedings as the beneficiary Company was the person for whose benefit the acquisition was made. Secondly, it is pointed out that on behalf of the Board, the Special Land Acquisition Officer stepped into the witness box and adduced evidence. Thirdly, it is pointed out that though the beneficiary Company was a party to the Reference under Section 18, the Award of the Reference Court was never challenged by the beneficiary Company. 10. The contention of the first respondent-Board before us is that it being a authority within the meaning of Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act, it was entitled to a notice of the Reference proceedings along with the beneficiary Company. 11. On a query made by us, the learned counsel appearing for the Board did not dispute that the entire compensation in this case will be payable by the beneficiary Company. The learned counsel also pointed out that after the acquisition was completed, certain portion of the acquired land has come back to the Board. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary Company. 12. Before we deal with Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act, we may note here that going by the Notifications issued under sub-Sections (1) and (4) of Section 28 of the 1966 Act, the acquisition was specifically for the benefit of the beneficiary Company. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary Company. 12. Before we deal with Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act, we may note here that going by the Notifications issued under sub-Sections (1) and (4) of Section 28 of the 1966 Act, the acquisition was specifically for the benefit of the beneficiary Company. Under sub-Section (1) of Section 28, the State Government has a power to notify a land for acquisition, both for the purposes of development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the object of the Act. Both the Notifications clearly lay down that the land was not sought to be acquired for the purposes of the development by the Board but for the activities of the beneficiary Company. 13. Apart from that, there is an agreement dated 02.06.2012 executed by and between the beneficiary Company and the Board which contains Clause 5. The said Clause incorporates obligation of the beneficiary Company to pay the enhancement of land compensation as per the decree of the competent Court. The agreement also records that initial compensation amount has already been deposited by the beneficiary Company with the Board. 14. Therefore, in the facts of the case, there is no manner of doubt that the acquisition was only for the benefit of the beneficiary Company and that the liability to pay compensation as well as the enhanced compensation was only of the beneficiary Company. On facts, it must be noted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer who is admittedly an Officer of the Board stepped into the witness box before the Reference Court. In the cross examination, he accepted that he was deposing on behalf of the Officers of the Board as well as on behalf of CEO of the Board. Documentary evidence was also adduced by him. 15. We have perused the impugned judgment. A finding has been recorded that the Board and the beneficiary Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. This finding is based on interpretation of Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act, as amended for the State of Karnataka. There is a finding recorded that notice was required to be issued on the References under Section 18 both to the beneficiary Company and the Board. This finding is based on interpretation of Clause [c] of Section 20 of the 1894 Act, as amended for the State of Karnataka. There is a finding recorded that notice was required to be issued on the References under Section 18 both to the beneficiary Company and the Board. For the sake of convenience, we may reproduce Section 20 as amended for State of Karnataka which reads thus: “20. Service of Notice.- The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the reference, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persona namely:- (a) the Deputy Commissioner; (b) all persons interested in the reference; and (c) If the acquisition is not made for the Government, the person or authority for whom it is made.” 16. In this case, acquisition is admittedly not for the benefit of the State Government. Clause [c] requires notice to be issued in such a case either to the person for whom acquisition is made or for the authority for whom the acquisition is made. Clause [c] incorporates the word “or” between “the person” and “authority” and not the word “and”. 17. In the facts of the case, the beneficiary Company is the person for whom the land was notified for acquisition and it is beneficiary Company which was liable to pay compensation and enhanced compensation to the owners. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to come to the conclusion that the notice under Clause [c] of Section 20 was required to be issued to the Board as well as to the Company. There was no requirement of issuing notice to the Board in the facts of the case. 18. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has noted that not only that the Award of the Reference Court was not challenged by the beneficiary Company, but during the course of hearing of the appeals, no submissions were canvassed by the learned counsel representing the beneficiary Company. 19. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that the Award of the Reference Court is bad on account of failure to issue notice to the Board is completely erroneous and is required to be set aside. Hence, there was no warrant for passing an order of remand. 20. 19. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that the Award of the Reference Court is bad on account of failure to issue notice to the Board is completely erroneous and is required to be set aside. Hence, there was no warrant for passing an order of remand. 20. Hence, the appeals succeed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Awards made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act by the Reference Court are restored. 21. We direct the beneficiary Company to pay the entire amount payable as per the Award of the Reference Court to the owners within a period of three months from today. No orders as to costs.