1 WP 3938.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3938 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.A.V.Indrale Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.G.Shelke, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner has filed an application purportedly under Order I Rule 10 ( 2 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding him as party in a Reference filed U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is in the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr.A.V.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed R.C.S. No. 351 of 1999 for partition on the ground that he has share in the property. According to the learned counsel, as the petitioner has share in the property and his rights are subjudiced in the civil 2 WP 3938.2011 Suit, the Reference Court should have allowed his application and impleaded the petitioner as party in the said Reference. According to the learned counsel, the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the application. 3. Mr. V.G.Shelke, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State supports the order. 4. It is a fact that the petitioner was not party before the Land Acquisition Officer in the said proceedings. The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Ambedevi V/s The State of Bihar and another reported in AIR 1996 – SC – 1513 and the learned Single Judge in the case of Govind Narayan Lotikar V/s Smt. Savitribai Raghuvira Lotikar and others reported in AIR 1987 – Bombay – 32 have held that persons claiming to be entitled to compensation or claiming to be interested in the acquired property, can not be impleaded by the District Court in a Reference when they were not parties before the Collector. 5. In view of this dictum of the Apex Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court, no error has been committed by the Reference Court in rejecting the application. 3 WP 3938.2011 6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3938.2011