1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.110 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.18 OF 2003 PETITION NO.18 OF 2003 PETITION NO.18 OF 2003 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd..Petitioners Vs. 1.State of Maharashtara & Ors..Respondents Mr. S.R. Rajguru, for the Petitioners Mr. Pradeep Sancheti with Mr. Kunal Rao i/b. M.A. Choudhari for Applicant Mr. Sandeep Parekh i/b. India Law Alliance, for Respondent No.3. Ms. Alpana Ghone i/b. D.S.K. Legal for Respondent No.4. CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO & REBELLO & REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: 1ST SEPTEMBER 2006 P.C. . Heard parties. M.T.N.L. approached this Court against the decision of the State Government to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Petitioners have joined apart from State of Maharashtra, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are private respondents. 2. The present application by the applicants is 2 that they be permitted to be added as respondents as they have also interest in the land. The private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 oppose the same on the ground that the Applicant was sought to be added have no right whatsoever. Submission on behalf of the applicants is that their names are now recorded in the revenue record. However, that has been stayed. 3. Considering the controversy in our opinion all that will happen would be that even if the Applicants are added as respondent, no right will be conferred upon them by the said addition. In the light of that Chamber Summons made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. Chamber Summons disposed of accordingly. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J).