IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9609 OF 2009 Shashikant Pasari ...Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. J.G.Reddy, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr. S.N.Patil, AGP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 9th December , 2009 P.C. 1 Petitioner is director of the respondent no.2, which is in liquidation. According to the petitioner, land which is acquired was under lease to the respondent no.2 for a period of 99 years. After the award was passed, petitioner had made representation to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20.10.2008. According to the petitioner, no reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the present petition. 2 Once the land is under possession of the liquidator, no suit or proceeding can lie without permission of the liquidator. We also have serious doubts as to locus of the present petitioner to maintain the present petition without the permission of the official liquidator. - 2 - 3 Petitioner further has pointed out that though land was in possession of the respondent no.2, official liquidator, the original owner has sold the land to the respondent nos.3 to 7. It is further the case of the respondent nos.3 to 7, who are not before us are the owners, have no right of compensation. 4 We do not propose to go into that controversy. It will be open to the petitioner herein to make a fresh representation to the liquidator of the respondent no.2. If such representation is made, Official liquidator to consider that in order to protect interest of the creditors of the company in liquidation as also the shareholders to take whatever steps in the law that he has to take. 5 With the above observations, the petition stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)