1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1255/2011 (W.C.L. Yavatmal VERSUS Janardhan L. Satpute & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Tushar R. Darda, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 11 , 2011 . Heard. The respondent no.1 had filed an application for determination of the amount of compensation under Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 before the Special Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1857. The petitioner, on receiving the notice, filed a written statement denying the claim of the respondent no.1. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal on 23.07.2010, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal for framing the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue as according to the petitioner, the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 was not tenable as he was not the owner of the acquired property. The Special Tribunal, however, by the impugned order dated 01.12.2010 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for framing the preliminary issue of jurisdiction at that stage as the 2 petitioner had filed the written statement on 05.11.2009 and had moved an application for framing the preliminary issue on 23.07.2010 when the matter was posted for recording of the evidence of the parties. The Tribunal further observed that unless the petitioner proves the voluminous photo copies of the documents placed on record for showing that the application was not tenable, it was difficult to record any finding on the issue of jurisdiction in the absence of evidence. Since the matter was posted for evidence, the Special Tribunal thought it fit to decide the issue of jurisdiction as well as the other issues involved in the case at a stretch while deciding the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957. The order passed by the Special Tribunal on 01.12.2010 cannot be said to be erroneous so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the issue of jurisdiction could be decided along with the other issues as the matter is fixed for recording of evidence of the parties. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE