1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4028 of 2010. Prabhakar Balkrishna Sawarkar & others ...VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra & others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for R-10. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, AGP for R-1 & R-2. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK; AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 13th June, 2011. Heard Mr. B.N. Mohta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.M. Bhangde, the learned counsel for respondent no.10 and Mr. A.M. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and 2. By this petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.12.2004, thereby holding that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 were entitled to receive compensation for the land acquired from Survey No.208/1 and 208/2. The petitioners seek a further direction to the respondent No.2 and 3 to make a reference to the Civil 2 Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No.208/1 and 208/2 initially belonged to respondent No.6 and 7. The respondent No.6 and 7 sold the afore-stated land to a third party and the third party sold it to the society, the respondent No.5 to this petition. After the purchase of the land in the year 1990, according to the petitioners the society converted the same into plots and the petitioners have purchased certain plots sold by the respondent No. 5 society. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the afore- stated land was issued in the year 1998 and an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2004. The Land Acquisition Officer held that the respondent No.6 and 7 were entitled to the compensation payable in respect of land Survey No.208/1 and 208/2. Aggrieved by the grant of compensation to the respondent No. 6 and 7, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition. As already stated herein above the petition is misconceived and the reliefs sought, cannot be granted by this Court. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the grant of compensation to the respondent No.6 and7, who according to the petitioners were not the owners of the land when it was acquired, the petitioners could have availed the remedy, which may have been available to them under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners however, did 3 not approach the Collector with the request to seek a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and directly approached this Court belatedly in the year 2010 to quash and set aside the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.12.2004. Merely because there is an observation in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the dispute pertains to compensation and it should be referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner could not have approached this Court for seeking the relief of quashing and setting aside the award dated 24.12.2004 granting compensation in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. The petitioners cannot approach this Court for a direction to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to make a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners ought to have moved the Collector, in this regard, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Nikhare