spb/- 1 wp9088-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9088 OF 2010 Smt. Jaitunbi Nabilal Mulla ... Petitioner. V/s. 1. Smt. Roshanbi Nabilal Mulla & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Shrishant Sakhare for the Petitioner. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 04th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1 The petitioner is original plaintiff. She filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 84/2010 against the respondents nos. 1 to 4. The State of Maharashtra and the Land Acquisition Officer who had acquired the land, were also joined as party to the suit though they have not been joined as party to the writ petition. 2 The case of the petitioner before the trial court was that the petitioner has 1/6th undivided share in the land bearing Gat No. 581/1 which was acquired and therefore, she sought compensation to the extent of her 1/6th share. The petitioner prayed for injunction, restraining the spb/- 2 wp9088-10.sxw respondents nos. 1 to 4 from receiving compensation of the land and also restraining the respondent no.5 from paying the compensation to the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 3 It appears that a separate reference under the Land Acquisition Act is pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, regarding the compensation. In the said reference, the respondent nos. 1 to 5 made an application for payment of 5/6th share as compensation to them jointly as even according to the petitioner she had only 1/6th share in the property and remaining 5/6th share belongs to the respondents. The court allowed the said application and permitted the respondents nos.1 to 5 to withdraw the compensation as per their 5/6th share that was deposited in the court. That order is impugned in this petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no objection for payment of 5/6th share to the respondent nos.1 to 5. However, the petitioner should also have been allowed to withdraw her 1/6th share as she has 1/6th share in the property. Since the petitioner has not made any application for withdrawal of 1/6th share there was no question of passing such an order. Further more her 1/6th share is not admitted by the respondent nos.1 to 5. They only claimed their 5/6th spb/- 3 wp9088-10.sxw share on the basis of the contention of the petitioner herself that she has 1/6th undivided share in the property. 5 No interference is called for in the impugned order, allowing payment of 5/6th share as a compensation to the respondent nos. 1 to 4. As regards, the petitioner’s claim for payment of 1/6th share to her, if she makes a separate application for payment of 1/6th share, the court shall consider it on its own merits. 6 With this observation, the writ petition is rejected. [D.G. KARNIK, J.] .....