1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1015/2010. Mukund Shyamlal Ghate and others. -: VERSUS :- State of Maharashtra and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 02, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri P.V. Vaidya, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for respondents. Shri Vaidya, learned Counsel states that petitioners have purchased the property from one Kanobaji Punjaramji Holey and two others on 04.03.1953. The lands were acquired and after amount of compensation was ascertained, some persons filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer and merely because of that objections, the matter has been referred to the District Court, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment reported at 2006 [2] BCR 815 (Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul .vrs. State of Maharashtra and 2 another) to contend that such reference cannot be made mechanically. He also relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at 1995 (supp-2) SCC 748 (Laxman Bhaskar Pathara .vrs. State of Maharashtra) to urge that without hearing the petitioner, the reference could not have been made. He contends that, though petitioner has no first hand knowledge, from reply filed by respondents before this Court it appears that Vendor of petitioners has again sold the property to some persons in the year 1989 and 1999. Learned A.G.P. states that the purchase by petitioners is not in dispute. The subsequent sale deeds were produced before the Land Acquisition Officer and after verifying those sale deeds as a dispute was found to be arising in the matter, reference has been made. According to him, reference is not mechanical and to substantiate his contentions, he invites attention to the order of reference dated 24.08.2009. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that the order of reference has been passed behind the back of petitioners. If petitioners had purchased the property in 1953 and are not parties to the subsequent sale deeds, the status of subsequent purchasers needs to be at least prima facie looked into by the Land Acquisition Officer. This could not have been done without hearing the petitioner. Hence, without going into more details of the controversy, the 3 impugned order dated 24.08.2009 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3 (respondent no.2) for taking fresh decision in the matter after hearing the petitioners and after hearing the persons who have filed objections. The respondent no.2 shall decide the objections after hearing the parties, as early as possible and in any case by 31.10.2010. Petitioners shall remain present before the respondent no.2 on 12.08.2010 and shall abide by his further instructions in the matter. Reasons given by this Court above shall not influence respondent no.2 as the same are given by this Court only to highlight the necessity of remand. Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.