1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2846 OF 2010 The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Corporation, Parbhani Division, District Parbhani ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Parbhani, I/c Collector, Hingoli (Copy to be served on G.P., High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.P.P. No.2, at Parbhani, I/c The Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.P.P. No.2, at Hingoli 3. Nanarao s/o Bhagwanrao Kadam (died) his L.Rs. A) Gayabai w/o Nanarao Kadam (wife), Age 70 years, Occ. Household, R/o Waranga Fata, Tq. Kalamnuri, District Hingoli. B) Sumanbai w/o Vishwanath Pund (daughter) age 42 years, Occ. Household, R/o Solapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, District Hingoli C) Raosaheb s/o Nanarao Kadam, Age 40 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Waranga Fata, Tq. Kalamnuri, District Hingoli ... RESPONDENTS 2 ..... Shri A.D. Wange, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri B.S. Kudale, Advocate for respondent Nos.3-A to 3-C ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 21st July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the award passed in Land acquisition reference No.130/1988 and further prays that the proceedings be remitted back to the Reference Court for decision afresh after making the petitioner a party to the reference proceedings. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the acquiring body and as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & ors. reported in AIR 3 2001 SC 992, the petitioner was a necessary party before the Reference Court. Unfortunately the petitioner was not joined as a party to the reference proceedings and the award of the reference Court came to be passed behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner learnt about the award only when the execution proceedings were filed and the notice in respect of the execution proceedings was received by the petitioner. 4. Since the petitioner was a necessary party before the Reference Court, and the petitioner was not joined as a party to the reference proceedings, the award passed by the Reference Court stands vitiated. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the award passed by the Reference Court and remit the matter back to the reference Court for a decision afresh in accordance with law. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3-A to 3-C states on instructions that on remand, the respondent Nos.3-A to 3-C, who are the original claimants, would join the petitioner as a party to the reference proceedings. We direct the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible after the petitioner is joined as a party to the reference proceedings, giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the claim set up by the original claiצants in respect of payment of enhanced compensation. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)