1 cra1101.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Revision Application No. 1101 of 2010 Smt. Rajas Gangaram Salekar & anr. ... Applicants v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr. G.S.Godbole i/b. Nitin Mule for the applicants. Mrs. V.S. Mhaispurkar-AGP for respondents 1-3. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare with Mr. V.S. Kapse i/b. Mr. A.S. Kapse for respondent no. 4. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 29, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd September, 2010 vide which the application filed by the present 2 cra1101.10.sxw petitioner for referring the matter regarding the compensation on account of acquisition of fruit trees for determination to the Court came to be rejected. 4. The land of one Sakharam Shinde was acquired by the respondent no. 1 for a minor irrigation scheme. The petitioners who are legal heirs of the said Sakharam were awarded their share of compensation insofar as component of land is concerned. However, insofar as the compensation on account of acquisition of fruit trees, is concerned, an award was passed only in favour of respondent no. 4. The petitioners contending that they were also entitled to share in the compensation towards acquisition of fruit trees, made an application to the Collector for referring the matter for the determination of the Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Vide the order impugned dated 2nd September, 2010 the application is rejected. Not only that vide the said order the respondent no. 1 has directed the compensation towards the fruit tress to be paid to the respondent no. 4. Accordingly, the same has also been paid to the respondent no. 4. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition. 5. Shri Godbole the learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sharda Devi v/s. State of Bihar 3 cra1101.10.sxw & anr. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 128 submits that once an application was made to the Collector, he had no other option but to refer the dispute for determination of the Court. He, therefore, submits that learned trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application. He further submits that order directing the payment of compensation to the respondent no. 4 is also unsustainable in law and, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the respondent no. 4 be directed to refund the amount to the Collector received on account of compensation towards fruit trees. 6. Shri Godbole further submits that in the event this Court finds that order is unsustainable in view of the provisions of Section 144 of CPC, this Court will have to direct restitution of the amount which has been illegally paid to respondent no. 4. 7. Shri Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel submits that the order passed by the Collector is a speaking order and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. The issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant v/s. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 237 has 4 cra1101.10.sxw clearly held that once an application is made to the Collector under Section 18(1), the Collector is enjoined to refer the dispute to the Court. In that view of the matter, Collector has exceeded in jurisdiction by considering the merits of the matter and rejecting the application under Section 18. Undisputedly, since the application was made within a prescribed period, the Collector had no other option than to refer the dispute to the Court. In that view of the matter, I find that the impugned order rejecting the application for making reference is concerned, is unsustainable in law. 9. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner regarding the order which directs the payment to be made to the respondent no. 4 and the prayer for direction to the respondent no. 4, to refund the said amount to the Collector is concerned, in my view same would be beyond the scope of sub-section 3 of Section 18 of the said Act. I find that if the petitioner desires to raise any grievance in that regard, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 18(3) will not be a proper forum. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant prayer in that regard. 10. Needless to state that petitioner will always be entitled to raise the grievance in that regard before appropriate forum. 5 cra1101.10.sxw 11. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. The impunged order dated 2nd September, 2010 insofar as he refused to make a reference to the Court is quashed and set aside. 12. The Respondent No. 3 Collector is directed to refer the matter to the Court. The Collector shall make a reference of the matter as provided under Section 18 within a period of four weeks from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)