1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10886 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2009 1. Amol S/o Gundgir Giri and others .. .. Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Respondents Shri B. B. Yerme, Advocate h/f Shri Morampalle S. N., Advocate for the Applicants. Shri R. P. Phatke, Additional G. P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. S. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 and 4. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. This is an application for intervention in the present appeal. The applicants claim to be son, daughter and wife of the original claimant No. 2 namely Gundgir Giri. It is submitted that, they have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 154/2009 claiming partition against their father/husband and, therefore, they should be permitted to intervene in the appeal and also permitted to withdraw the amount falling to their share. 2 2. The award was passed by the Collector on 03rd January, 1988. Thereafter, immediately references were filed in the year 1989. The learned Reference Court decided the reference on 08th July, 2008. During of this period neither there has been any application filed by the present applicants, either before the Collector or before the Reference Court. Had such an application been filed the Collector could have referred the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent Civil Court. After the award is passed by the Reference Court, a suit is filed on 19th August, 2009 i. e. after a period of one year and two months from the date of the order of the Reference Court. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that merely because the suit for the partition is filed, the applicants be permitted to intervene and also be permitted to withdraw an amount falling to their share is totally unknown to the basic principles of law. As on today only a suit is filed. Neither there is a decree of partition apportioning the share of claimants vis- a-vis the share of original claimant No. 2, nor is there any order passed by competent Civil Court restraining the claimants from withdrawing the amount. The application is wholly without substance and is therefore, liable to be rejected. The application is, therefore, rejected. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Oct. 09