1512lpa418.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR L. P. A. NO. 418 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 915 OF 2011 Suresh U. Dhawale & Ano. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri R. L. Khapre Adv for appellant. Shri M. M. Agnihotri Adv for respondent 2. Smt. K. S. Joshi AGP for respondent 1. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P. D. KODE JJ. DATED: 15th DECEMBER, 2011. Shri Agnihotri learned counsel for acquiring body- respondent no.2 states that reference proceedings in L.A.C. No. 257 of 1997 are already finally decided. According to him in this situation present challenge has become infructuous. Shri Khapre learned counsel for the appellants points out that in present matter, there was no dispute between person who filed proceedings under Section 18 and present appellants, hence substitution ought to have been allowed. Shri Agnihotri learned counsel and learned AGP are 1512lpa418.11 2 opposing this contention. No body appears for respondent no.3 though he is already served. In this situation we find that as reference proceedings are already over the appellant can take further appropriate steps if he is aggrieved by that adjudication and in those proceedings he can also challenge the impugned order dated 17.02.2011 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola, below Ex. 121. Hence with that liberty to present appellant we dispose of the present appeal clarifying that the observations made by learned Single Judge in impugned order shall not eclipse consideration of said challenge by the concerned Court. The objections being raised by respondents 1 and 2 are kept open for consideration by that Court. JUDGE JUDGE svk