1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3004 OF 2009 1. Hanumant S/o.Devidas Shinde, Age-30 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Sahyognagar East, Beed, Tq. And District Beed 2. Raju S/o.Govind Shinde, Age-35 years, Occu-Pvt.Service, R/o. As above. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Collector, Beed. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jayakwadi Project, Beed. 4. Vishnu Pandurang Shinde, Age-66 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o.Sahyog Nagar, Beed. Tq. And District Beed. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Thombre, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 3. Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/07/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.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. We have heard Shri.Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri.K.B.Chaudhary, learned AGP on behalf of respondent no.1,2 and 3, and Shri.A.N.Nagargoje, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. 3. The facts which are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly to be stated thus. 4. According to the petitioners, grandfather of the petitioners and father of respondent no.4 were the joint owners of agricultural land which is the subject matter of the present petition. On demise of the father of the petitioners and respondent no.4, the names of the parties came to be recorded in the revenue record. According to the petitioners, partition was effected on 17/04/1995. It also appears that prior to partition, certain portion of the land came to be sold on account of legal necessity of the joint family. The land which was 3 originally belonging to the joint family prior to partition, which subsequently came to be partitioned was acquired. A total area of 14R from the land of the petitioners and the respondent no.4 was acquired. This land therefore was not reflected in the Deed of Partition between the parties. It appears that the contention came to be set up by the present petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer by submitting an application that since the 14R land which was acquired had been acquired prior to the partition, the parties to the present petition would have equal share in the compensation. We are informed that the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioners is still pending consideration. It also appears that the petitioners submitted an application for correcting the arithmetical or clerical errors in the award in which less area than the area acquired was shown in the award. We are further informed that the aforesaid application is pending consideration. 5. Thus the contention of the petitioner is that in the light of dispute which is raised, the Land Acquisition Officer be directed to refer the application of the petitioners in respect of apportionment of compensation to the Civil Court u/s. 30 of The Land Acquisition Act and also to decide the pending applications which are pending before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Since we are inclined to allow this petition and to direct the Special Land Acquisition officer to decide the aforesaid applications, we refrain from making any observations on merits of the matter 4 least it prejudice the rights of the parties. 7. We therefore allow this petition and direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the pending applications in accordance with Law and after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents to this petition. This exercise to be carried out by the Special Land Acquisition Officer within a period of 3 months from today. 8. The Land Acquisition Officer may also examine the propriety of releasing compensation in favour of either parties till the different applications which are pending, particularly application seeking reference u/s. 30 of The Land Acquisition Act are decided by the authorities. 9. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. Copy duly authenticated by Shirastedar of this Court be provided to either counsel on request. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp3004-09