1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 258 of 1919 which we have just decided. It is an appeal by Sanwal Das, the owner of part of the land and he claims that he was entitled to the whole of the compensation for 1 bigha 2 biswas of land and the price of the trees and buildings standing thereon. His claim is directed against Debi Din who has been awarded compensation for the major portion of this land. The learned Judge did come to the conclusion that the claim of Sanwal Das was allowable against Gaga Prasad and Debi Din (zemimdars) but owing to a mistake has allowed him compensation for 13 biswas 15 biswansis only and has further omitted to give him. Rs. 99 odd on account of the trees and buildings. He has allowed the balance to Debi Din which is against the finding he has arrived at. Sanwal Das in this appeal has made' the Secretary of State for India in Council the only respondent and has not impleaded Debi Din against whom his main relief is directed. So far as the Secretary of State for India in Council is concerned, we have already given our reasons in detail in the connected appeal for coming to the conclusion that the total amount of compensation awarded was correct, so that this appeal on the question of the inadequacy of compensation must fail. The relief claimed is really sought against Debi Din but we cannot grant it because Deb; Din is no a patrty to this appeal. Under Section 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Secretary of State is only interested in the amount of compensation which the Collector or the Court on reference by the Collector awards. He is not interested as a party in the distribution or apportionment of the compensation, see Section 31(2) proviso 3. His interest ceases when he has placed at the disposal of the Court the total a mount of compensation. Ai Deb Din is no party to this appeal and cannot be made a party now because of the bar of limitation, we cannot help the appellant. It was his own fault that he did not implead Debi Din against whom his claim was really directed. Under these circumstances we dismiss this appeal also with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.