1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 292/2011. Santosh Daulatrao Dhote and another. -VERSUS- The Collector, Amravati and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 23.06.2011. Heard Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. The prayer in the present petition is to direct the respondent no.1 Collector to refer the apportionment dispute to the competent Civil Court. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of 2 respondent no.1 has filed affidavit in reply stating that steps to acquire the field gut no. 50 (old no.13), area 8 hectares 26 ares of Mouza Yeranwadi, Tq. Warud, District Amravati, are yet not initiated. Similarly, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 upon instructions also states that position explained on affidavit by the respondent no.1 is correct, and the land has yet not been acquired. Learned Counsel for respondent no.4 has pointed out that land belongs to it and petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance, which is pending. According to him, the request to refer the apportionment dispute is, therefore, premature. Learned Counsel for petitioners has invited attention to a valuation certificate which shows the land mentioned above and it appears from the said document that it was being considered for acquisition by private sale. The petitioners are in possession of the above land. Their suit for specific performance is already pending and proceedings for acquisition are still not initiated. We, therefore, find the request made 3 in the petition as premature. In any case the claim of the petitioners for receipt of compensation, is already known to the acquiring body i.e. respondent nos. 2 and 3 and also the owners i.e. respondent no.4. In this situation, we find no merit in the request at this stage. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd