1 On 11th November, 2011, following order was passed:

“1. Notice before admission is already issued by order dated 28/7/2011. This notice is now being issued for final disposal at the stage of admission. Learned AGP waives service on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Deshmukh waives service on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 to 9. Respondent No.4 is really a formal party since the dispute is regarding reference under section 30 and 31 of the L.A. Act, 1984. Mr. Thokade however to serve private notice on the Central Government Advocate for Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Aykar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai AGP to get original record pertaining to award. Stand over to 22nd November, 2011 at 3.p.m.

2. The learned Advocates to circulate compilation of relevant judgments on or before 19th November, 2011.

3. In case the amount is deposited in Fixed Deposit or Savings bank account as on today, the Respondent No.5 to 9 shall not withdraw the same until further orders.”

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Record was already produced and inspection was taken. The learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 are the formal parties. Mr. Deshmukh waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 to 9.

3. The dispute involved in this Petition lies in a narrow compass and the facts are as under:

(a) It is an admitted position that the land in question namely – land bearing gat No.50/1 situated at Village Aherwadi, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur was owned by deceased Govind Narayan Chormule. He died on 13th August, 1991 . It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is the daughter of late Govind Chormule whereas he had one son named Bhagwat who died on 16th June, 1998. Respondent Nos.5 to 9 are the widow and children of the said Bhagwat. These facts are admitted. After the death of Govind, Mutation Entry was made and the name of only Bhagwat was recorded in the Revenue Record and the name of Petitioner was not recorded. There were some proceedings initiated by the Petitioner regarding Certification of Mutation Entry under the provisions of the MLR Code 1966 which were decided against the Petitioner.

(b) The land was thereafter proposed to be acquired for Respondent No.1 and the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 is issued on 10th November, 2008. On 13th November, 2008, the Petitioner has filed RCS No.880 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur for partition and separate possession against Respondent Nos.5 to 9 and the same is pending. On 18th August, 2010, the Petitioner issued notice to the Divisional Commissioner, Collector and the SLAO No.2 Solapur to claim a share in the compensation and objected to distribute compensation to Respondent Nos.5 to 9. On 3rd October, 2010, the Petitioner submitted another application to SLAO, Solapur who exercised the power of Collector under the Act and demanded 50% of the compensation. The SLAO/ Collector did not send any notice of award to the Petitioner and the award under Section 11 was declared on 29th January, 2011. No compensation was awarded to the Petitioner and the entire compensation was awarded to Respondent Nos.5 to 9. In fact, it is the consent award and the Respondent Nos.5 to 9 did not raise any objection regarding the compensation or about the area of land.

(c) Thereafter, on 11th April, 2011, the Petitioner filed Application before the Collector, seeking reference under Section 30 of the Act by impugned order dated 3rd May, 2011, the said application has been rejected, giving rise to the present Writ Petition.

4. Advocate Thokade submitted that the Collector had no right to decide the interse dispute relating to the title and merely because the name of the Petitioner is not entered in the revenue records, he could not have declined to make the reference under Section 30. Mr. Thokade relied upon the following Judgments:

(i) Dr. G. H. Gr