wp915.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.915/2011 Suresh Uttamrao Dhawale and another -vs- State of Maharashtra and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri R. L. Khapre, counsel for the petitioners. Shri D. B. Patel, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri M. G. Sarda, counsel for the respondent No.2. Shri D. P. Goenka, counsel for the respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 09.09.2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Reference Court on 17/02/2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for substituting their names as claimants in place of original land holder and claimant Nana Lakhdive. The respondent No.1, the State of Maharashtra had acquired the agricultural land of respondent No.3 Nana. The respondent No.3 had filed a reference / appeal under Section 34 of The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. It appears that during the pendency of the reference, the respondent No.3, the original claimant assigned and transferred his rights and interest in the land acquisition case in favour of the petitioners by executing a deed of wp915.11.odt 2/3 assignment dated 05/02/2011. The petitioners therefore filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting their names in place of the respondent No.3 and permitting them to prosecute the reference. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 strongly opposed the prayer made in the said application and the Reference Court after hearing the parties, rejected the application by the impugned order dated 17/02/2011. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Reference Court on 17/02/2011 in rejecting the application as the matter was finally heard and fixed for judgment when the application was filed by the petitioners. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment reported in 1986 (1) Bom.C.R. 103 to state that a person who has absolutely no semblance of right in the acquired land cannot be permitted to prosecute the reference seeking enhanced compensation in place of the person who would otherwise be eligible for the same in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the leaned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the judgment reported in 1986 (1) Bom.C.R. 103 and relied on by the counsel for the respondent No.2 is not good law as the legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 557 was not considered by this Court before rendering the judgment reported in 1986 (1) Bom.C.R. 103. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since wp915.11.odt 3/3 such type of agreements are held to be legal by the judgment reported in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 557, this Court may not follow the decision reported in 1986 (1) Bom.C.R. 103. It is not necessary for this Court to deal with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent No.2 on the basis of the judgments reported in 1986 (1) Bom.C.R. 103 and AIR 1954 Supreme Court 557 as the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the application as the matter was heard finally and was fixed for judgment. The petitioners could have as well based his claim on the agreement after the judgment was passed, in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE