1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6888 OF 2000 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6889 OF 2000 Dadu Shankar Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners (In both the petitions) versus Rakhmabai Tukaram Patil & Anr. .. Respondents (In both the petitions) Mr.K.S.Dewal for the petitioners in both the petitions. None for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th January 2010. JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. The facts of these two petitions are more or less identical and therefore a reference is made to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No.6888 of 2000. The Writ Petition arises out of proceedings of a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The present petitioners are the claimants and the 1st respondent herein is the counter- claimant. An application was made by the 2nd respondent praying that he may be impleaded as a counter-claimant to the said reference. In the said application it was contended that the petitioners are the heirs of one Shankar Shinwar Patil 2 and the 1st respondent is the daughter-in-law of one Rama Shinwar Patil and the widow of Tukaram Rama Patil who was the eldest brother of the 2nd respondent. It was contended that the land subject matter of reference was owned by the said Shinwar Rama Patil. It was contended that the said 2nd respondent alongwith the petitioners and the 1st respondent were heirs of the deceased Shankar Shinwar Patil and Rama Shinwar Patil. It was contended that no notice of Award under section 11 of the said Act was issued to the 2nd respondent. The application was opposed by the petitioners by filing a reply. By the impugned order, the said application has been allowed and 2nd respondent has been directed to be impleaded as a party. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Govind Narayan Lotlikar vs. Savitribai Roghuvira Lotlikar & Ors (AIR 1987 Bombay 32). Relying upon the said decision he submitted that the 2nd respondent could not have been impleaded as a party to the reference. He pointed out that in fact the said decision was cited before the learned trial Judge. None appears for the respondents. 4. I have considered the submissions. The reference is under section 30 of the said Act. It will be necessary to consider the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Lotlikar (supra). In first paragraph of the said decision, this Court has formulated the question for consideration which reads thus: “Can the District Court in a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 implead persons who calim to be entitled to the compensation awarded in a land acquisition proceedings or to a part 3 thereof, or who claim to be interested in the acquired property, when the same persons were not parties before the Collector, is the question that arises in this revision application.” In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the decision, this Court held thus: “. I already said that it is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the District Court while disposing a reference under the Land Acquisition Act is restricted by the terms of the reference itself. This being so, if a dispute that arose before the Collector among the parties who are before him is referred to the District Court, it necessarily follows that a person who was not before the Collector and who claims to have interest in the land and, therefore, is entitled to the payment of a compensation or part thereof is raising a new dispute and, as such, such person cannot be impleaded. This is no manner means that such person is deprived of a remedy to get redress to his grievances. The doors of a civil court are always open to him and he may approach the Court with a suit to get his right duly determined. ...... .... the view I have taken that if a person who was not a party before the Collector is allowed to be impleaded by the District Court in a reference to it, the nature of the dispute referred to will be substantially changed, for a new dispute incorporating the claim of such a person will be raised. This is not permissible, as the jurisdiction of the District Court in a reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is restricted to the precise terms of the reference. Such impleading would amount ot an enlargement of the terms of the reference and as such, the District Court would act without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, if it so orders.” 5. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the learned trial Judge could not have impleaded the 2nd respondent as a party to the reference. While making a reference, the Special Land Acquisition Officer observed that the name of the 2nd respondent was deleted as his name was deleted from the revenue record in respect of the acquired land. Hence, the petitions must succeed. But the remedy of the 2nd respondent is kept open as the Award will not bind him. Hence, I pass the following order: 4 : O R D E R : (a) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (b) There will be no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)