JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. PA Jadeja waives service of rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned AGP Ms. Foram Trivedi waives service of rule for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. In the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 13.5.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Lunawada below objection application in LAR No.421 of 2005 with a relief to allow the objection application dated 13.5.2021 and reject the Vakalatnama of new advocate.

(B) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of LAR No.421 of 2005 pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Lunawada till the final disposal of the present petition.”

3. The necessary facts for deciding this petition can briefly be stated thus:-

3.1 The petitioner is practising advocate. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original claimants (in short “the original claimants”) living in Dist: Mahisagar. Their lands were proposed to be acquired by the State Government for Sujlam Suflam Spreding Canal project under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”). Necessary notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act were published and consequently, the lands of the original claimants were acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer assessed and awarded the compensation at Rs.5/- per sq mtr for Jirayat land. Assessment of this compensation was not agreeable to the original claimants and therefore, they intended to prefer reference under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the original claimants have engaged the petitioner to represent them in the reference case. The original claimants have signed the Vakalatnama and authorized the petitioner for appearing, pleading and to do all needful acts for and on behalf of the original claimants in the reference case.

3.2 The learned Reference Court favoured the case of the original claimants and enhanced compensation to Rs.304/- per sq mtr as additional compensation. The appeal proceedings were also taken. Subsequent thereto, the government has deposited the awarded amount before the learned Reference Court. The original claimants thereafter, engaged new lawyer and preferred payment withdrawal pursis before the learned Reference Court. Since the original claimant did not keep and continue the present petitioner as their advocate in payment withdrawal pursis, the petitioner has filed objection (Annexure

D) before the learned Reference Court and raised contention that since his authority as advocate in the reference proceedings is continue and in force, the Vakalatnama of the new advocate cannot be accepted and the original claimants cannot engage new lawyer for the payment withdrawal pursis without obtaining no objection from the petitioner. The learned Reference Court, having heard learned advocates for both the parties, passed the impugned order rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner.

4. The above proceedings has given rise to the present petition as the petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned order.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. PC Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vijay Raval for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. PA Jadeja for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – original claimants and learned AGP Ms.Foram Trivedi for the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

6. Submitting facts of the case, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. PC Kavina would submit that original claimants by signing the Vakalatnama had authorized the petitioner to appear, plead and to do all needful acts for and on behalf of the original claimants. He would further submit that such authority shall continue to remain in force in view of Order 3 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) till the Vakalatnama and the appearance of the petitioner is determined by the Court or by the client, who