1 wp1430-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1430 OF 2011 Apparao Hanmantrao Patil .. Petitioner Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer of Solapur and others ... Respondents Mr. P. S. Dani i/by Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar for the petitioner Smt. P. S. Cardozo for the State-RespondentnO. 1 and 3 Mr. V. B. Naik, i/by Mr. P. G. Sarda for respondent No.2 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 20th October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. Perused impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, below Exh.13 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 2010. 2. Grievance is made by the petitioner in this petition that so long as claim of the petitioner is not decided by the Reference Court, it was not proper for the learned trial Court to grant permission to respondent no.2 to withdraw the amount as per the impugned order. 3. I have perused the text of the plaint. The plaintiff claims that he has a share in the land and he has arrived at figure of Rs.98,27,474/- as one over which he can put up his claim out of the total compensation which is being 2 wp1430-11 paid. The learned trial judge has considered the application and has also noted the claim of the petitioner and has allowed respondent no.2 to take away an amount of Rs.81,67,284.02 from the amount which is deposited in the Court. 4. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted for a moment that he has a share in the land which came to be acquired, he would be able to get the amount on the basis of the claim put up by him in the plaint. In any case it is seen that the learned Judge has applied his mind with reference to the total amount of compensation, share claimed by the petitioner and other aspects and has arrived at the order dated 14th January, 2011. The impugned order is proper and no interference is required. 5. In the course, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that looking to the nature of dispute, it would be proper, if the Reference itself is heard and decided at an early date. Learned Advocate Mr. Naik appearing on behalf of respondent states that the his client will cooperate before the Court so as to have expeditious decision in the matter. In view of this, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. i. No interference is required in the impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 2010. ii. Learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur is hereby directed to dispose of the land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st May, 2012. 3 wp1430-11 iii. Since the Suit is filed by the petitioner claiming share in the property which is subject matter of acquisition as mentioned aforesaid, it would be equally proper to direct the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur who is entertaining Special Civil Suit No. 137 of 2007 to hear and dispose of the said Suit by 31st May, 2012. iv. Order accordingly. v. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)