https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173190 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. en-us Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2023 21:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173190 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173190