Land acquisition reference impleadment: CIDCO was not a necessary party or person interested, and the order failed.

CIDCO was held not to be a necessary or proper party, and not a "person interested", in a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land had been acquired at the instance and expense of the State Government, with the Town Development Department remaining the acquiring body, while CIDCO acted only as the State's agent for New Bombay development. Because CIDCO had no claim to compensation or its apportionment, the definitions in Section 3(b) and the notice provision in Section 20 did not assist it. Section 50(2) also did not apply, as the acquisition was neither at CIDCO's cost nor for its benefit, so the impleadment order could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether CIDCO was a necessary or proper party, or a person interested, in the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the impugned impleadment order could be sustained.

Analysis: Under Section 113(3A) and Section 113A of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, CIDCO had been appointed as the New Town Development Authority to act as an agent of the State Government for development of New Bombay. The acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 showed that the land was acquired at the instance and at the expense of the State Government, and the acquiring body remained the Town Development Department of the State Government. The Government Resolution relied upon by CIDCO also indicated that, at the relevant time, compensation was payable by the State Government, with CIDCO paying only on account of the Government. On that footing, CIDCO was neither the acquiring body nor the person bearing the compensation liability. The expressions "person interested" in Section 3(b) and the notice provision in Section 20 did not assist CIDCO, because it had no claim to the compensation or its apportionment. Section 50(2) also did not apply, since the acquisition was not at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by CIDCO, nor for its benefit.

Conclusion: CIDCO was not entitled to be impleaded as a necessary party, proper party, or person interested in the reference, and the impleadment order was unsustainable.

---