1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4904/2010 (Rameshwar Dyaneshwar @ Saneshwar Sakure vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.G.Malode, Adv for Petitioner Mr. A.G.Mujumdar, AGP for R-1 to 3 Mr. A.R.Patil, Adv. for R-4 and 5 CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE J. DATED: 5 th JULY , 2011. This writ petition challenges the order dated 03.04.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Perusal of the application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the petitioner shows that it raises a dispute regarding the title and ownership of the land in question. Undisputedly, the land in question stands in the name of respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the revenue records. Accordingly, the amount of award in respect of acquisition of land in question has been disbursed to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The contention of Shri Malode, the learned 2 counsel appearing for the petitioner is that such disbursement should not have taken place in view of his objection and the application for reference should have been allowed. The dispute raised in the application is not regarding apportionment of compensation, but it pertains to the title and ownership of land in question. Hence, it does not fall under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The further contention of Shri Malode is that Section 30 covers the dispute as to the entitlement of a person to receive the compensation. It is not in dispute that the compensation has been settled under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and while settling the compensation, such a dispute was not raised. Hence, the contention cannot be accepted. It will be open for the petitioner to adopt such other appropriate proceedings as are permissible in law to recover the said amount from the respondents. It is with the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit