Person Interested under Land Acquisition Act: attaching creditor can be impleaded to contest compensation compromise; revision also maintainable.

An attaching creditor claiming an interest in compensation for acquired land is a "person interested" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and may be impleaded in references concerning compensation or apportionment. The inclusive definition in Section 3(b), read with the statutory scheme, supports hearing such a claimant where the compensation dispute may affect his rights, including the ability to contest a compromise. The Supreme Court also noted that a Civil Judge's order refusing impleadment before any award is not an appealable award under Section 54; in the absence of an appeal, revision lies where jurisdiction is wrongly refused or material irregularity occurs. The revisions were therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an attaching creditor claiming an interest in compensation payable for acquired land is a person interested entitled to be impleaded in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to contest the compromise affecting that compensation; (ii) whether the High Court could entertain revision against the Civil Judge's order rejecting impleadment.

Issue (i): Whether an attaching creditor claiming an interest in compensation payable for acquired land is a person interested entitled to be impleaded in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to contest the compromise affecting that compensation.

Analysis: The expression "person interested" in Section 3(b) is inclusive and covers persons claiming an interest in compensation. The scheme of the Act, including Sections 5A, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21, 29 and 30, shows that such a claimant is meant to be heard where the objection concerns compensation or apportionment and his interests are likely to be affected. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with persons who had failed to seek a reference themselves and held that those cases did not bar impleadment of a person whose claim was already before the Court and whose interest in the compensation would be directly affected.

Conclusion: Yes. The attaching creditor was a person interested and was entitled to be impleaded and to protect his interest in the pending references, including by challenging the compromise.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could entertain revision against the Civil Judge's order rejecting impleadment.

Analysis: The order of the Civil Judge was not an award within Section 54 of the Act, because the awards had yet to be made. In the absence of an appeal, the High Court was competent to exercise revisionary jurisdiction where the Civil Judge had refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him or had acted with material irregularity in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The objection based on appealability therefore failed.

Conclusion: Yes. The revisions were maintainable and the High Court rightly entertained them.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed on both the merits of impleadment and the objection to the High Court's jurisdiction, so the appeals could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person claiming an interest in compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a "person interested" entitled to be heard in compensation or apportionment proceedings, and where no appeal lies, revision is maintainable against an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction or suffering from material irregularity.

---