1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.6791 of 1999 In First Appeal No.1010 of 1998 Vishnu Fakira Sonawane Applicant Vs. The State of Maharshtra & ors. Respondents Mr.S.G.Surana for applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP for State. Mrs.Bhavana Khemani i/b. Mr.A.J.Ahuja for resp.nos.2 to 4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. January 22, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Surana, the learned counsel for the applicant who seeks to be added as an intervenor in First Appeal No.1010 of 1998. 2. It is contended by the applicant that before the land was acquired, he had purchased the same by an agreement for sale and he had filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer prior to passing of the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further states that when the original owners had submitted an application for enhancement, he appeared before the Reference Court and filed an application at Exhibit 11 for being impleaded as one of the claimants. This application was rejected on 2 25/3/1996. 3. The learned Joint District Judge, Nashik held that the remedy of the petitioner was to file a civil suit and even otherwise the Sub Divisional Officer, Malegaon had decided the dispute regarding the title to the acquired property in favour of the original claimants. This order was not challenged by the applicant at any time before the higher forum. Admittedly at no point of time after the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the applicant submitted an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. When the petitioner had a remedy of either filing a civil suit or submitting an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and he did not resort to either of the remedies, he cannot be allowed to now intervene to claim a proportionate right on the compensation and that too in an appeal filed by the State challenging the award passed by the Reference Court. 4. Hence the application is rejected. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)