referred to as `the Act') was filed by respondents No.1 to 4, was part of the aforesaid acquisition. Respondents No.1 to 4 claimed themselves to be in possession of the said land as perpetual lessees for 99 years, regarding which the lease was executed in their favour by Smt. Shakuntla Devi (predecessor of the petitioners). The reference was finally decided by the Reference Court vide judgment dated 6.10.1983. In appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 4, while reducing the amount of compensation, the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated September 4, 1989, remitted the matter for adjudication of the issue with regard to apportionment of the compensation between the owner and the perpetual lessees. When the matter came back to the Reference Court, Smt. Shakuntla Devi moved an application for becoming party in the reference, as earlier she did not submit any application either under Section 30 or Section 18 of the Act. Her application was allowed vide order dated 9.2.1983 and thereafter, the case was adjourned for evidence of the respective parties. When the evidence was in progress and respondents No.1 to 4 were producing certain documents, learned counsel for Smt. Shakuntla Devi objected for the same, to which learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that Smt. Shakuntla Devi has no locus standi in the case, as she did not file any reference either under Section 30 or Section 18 of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 22.5.1992, the Reference Court observed that Smt. Shakuntla Devi has no locus standi to raise such objection. This order has been challenged in the present revision petition.
