-: 1 :- wp- 5483/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5483 OF 2009 Tatya Zitya Mhatre since deceased through L.R. ..Petitioner. Versus Babu Zitya Mhatre & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Prasad Dani a/w Mr. Prasad Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin B. Patil i/b Mr. U. P. Warunjikar for respondents. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 27, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By the impugned order Reference Court allowed the application of Respondent nos. 1A to 1E seeking deletion of names of other persons to whom notices were sent and directed that the reference would continue only in between Respondent nos. 1A to 1E on the one hand and Respondent nos. 2A to 2E on the other hand. 2. The dispute is in respect of land Survey No. 112-1/6, 112-1/10. This land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and award was passed under section 11 of the said Act. There was dispute as to title of said land, and therefore reference under section 30 of the Land srp -: 2 :- wp- 5483/10 Acquisition Act came to be filed by respondent nos. 1A to 1E against respondent nos.2A to 2E. In this dispute, initially notices came to be issued to the present petitioners also. 3. It is the case of respondent nos. 1A to 1E that their predecessor-in- title was tenant of the land in dispute. After fixation of purchase price under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, certificate under section 32-M of the BT&AL Act is also issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title of respondent nos.1A to 1E. The contention of the petitioner, on the contrary, is that the original tenant was Zitya Mhatre, who is predecessor-in-title of both petitioners and respondents and therefore they are entitled to have share in compensation. 4. Reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is filed by respondent nos.1A to 1E against respondent nos.2A to 2E. Respondent nos.1A to 1E have not joined the present petitioners as party to the said reference. By the impugned order, notices which were inadvertently issued to the petitioner and other persons came to be revoked. In my view, the petitioner cannot make any grievance in this regard since he is not party to the original reference proceedings filed by respondent nos. 1A to 1E. If the petitioners claim title to the land in dispute alongwith respondent nos.1A to 1E, their remedy would be to apply to the -: 3 :- wp- 5483/10 Reference Court for joining them as party–respondent in the pending reference. The Petitioners’ purpose will not be served by only getting notices issued. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (a) The petitioners at liberty to apply to the Reference Court in pending dispute between respondent nos.1A to 1E and respondent nos.2A to 2E, to join them as party-respondent. (b) In the event petitioners file said application within five weeks from today, the Reference Court shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 months from filing of same. (c) Needless to mention that the Court below shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order and shall decide the said application of the petitioner on its own merits. (R.V. MORE, J.)