Land acquisition beneficiary lacks locus to appeal compensation enhancement; transposition of acquiring officer cannot cure non-maintainability.

A beneficiary of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act has no locus standi to maintain an appeal against enhancement of compensation, even with leave, because the Act confines participation in reference proceedings to the Government and the landowner and does not treat the beneficiary as a person interested. The Act's special scheme overrides the general appellate procedure under the Civil Procedure Code, so leave cannot create a right of appeal where the statute excludes one. A late request to transpose the acquiring officer as appellant also failed, as the delay was inordinate and could not cure the original non-maintainability of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a person for whose benefit land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act can maintain an appeal against enhancement of compensation with leave of the appellate court; (ii) whether the acquiring officer could be transposed as an appellant and permitted to continue the appeal.

Issue (i): whether a person for whose benefit land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act can maintain an appeal against enhancement of compensation with leave of the appellate court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confines acquisition proceedings to the Government and the landowner. The expressions and machinery in Sections 3(b), 5-A, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 50(2), 53 and 54 show that the beneficiary of the acquisition is not a person interested, cannot demand a reference under Section 18, is only entitled to appear and adduce evidence on compensation, and has no place as a party in the reference proceedings. The special scheme of the Act overrides the general appellate procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the power to grant leave to a non-party cannot be invoked to confer a right of appeal on one whom the Act excludes from the lis.

Conclusion: The beneficiary of the acquisition had no locus standi to maintain the appeal, even with leave of court.

Issue (ii): whether the acquiring officer could be transposed as an appellant and permitted to continue the appeal.

Analysis: The petition for transposition was filed after an inordinate delay and after the legal position had already been clarified in earlier proceedings. The explanation offered did not justify the delay, and the asserted governmental order did not confer any right to prosecute the appeal independently. Since the original appeal itself was not maintainable at the instance of the beneficiary, the transposition request could not cure the defect in the proceeding.

Conclusion: The transposition petition was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the compensation award failed at the threshold on maintainability, and the request to substitute the acquiring officer as appellant also failed, leaving the claimant's award undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Land Acquisition Act, the person for whose benefit land is acquired is excluded from the reference proceedings and cannot, by leave or otherwise, appeal against the award on compensation.

---