1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners are assailing order dated 30.08.2025 rejecting the application for their impleadment in Land Reference No. 31 of 2023. The land reference was filed at the instance of respondent nos. 1 to 5, which is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Madha preferred under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highway Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are necessary parties and they are entitled to receive compensation for the acquisition of the land in question. It is submitted that in view of liberty granted by High Court vide order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.4023 of 2025, the trial Court should not have rejected the application. It is submitted that the respondents have suppressed material facts and trying to grab the entire compensation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners have no right, title and interest in the subject matter. There was already partition amongst members of the family. The revenue record is also mutated by incorporating Entry No.506. It is submitted that the petitioners have an alternate remedy of filing the suit.

5. Learned AGP opposes the petition on the ground of locus and adopts the submissions of the respondents.

6. The petitioners are claiming to be heirs of Shankar Mali. Their names are spelt out in the genealogy which is incorporated in the Application Exh.51. The relationship is not disputed. The Application Exh.55 was filed by respondent no.6 to implead the petitioners which is rejected by the impugned order. The petitioners can be said to be affected parties. They have right to maintain petition challenging the impugned order.

7. The following genealogy is undisputed one.

                   

8. The petitioners are the daughters of Shankar and Bhagirathi and siblings of Bhagwan and Sanjay who are contesting parties.

9. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 claim to be owners of land Gat No.943/1A and 943/1D acquired under National Highway Act. The award was passed on 25.04.2011 by the competent Authority. After passing of the Award, amount of Rs.28,30,939/- was deposited. The competent authority passed order dated 07.05.2012 apportioning the quantum while depositing the amount in the Court. The matter was referred to Civil Court, Senior Division for apportionment under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act. The petitioners were not party till then.

10. The petitioners filed Application Exh.51 seeking impleadment in LAR No.98 of 2013, which was rejected on 13.02.2025. Being aggrieved, they have preferred Writ Petition No. 4033 of 2025. It was disposed of on 26.03.2025 keeping open for the petitioners to apply under Section 30 of the Act. The petitioners made a representation to the Deputy Collector for impleading them as a party respondent. Then, Application Exh.55 was submitted by respondent nos.6 to 8 to add the petitioners which was rejected by the impugned order.

11. The land in question has been acquired under National Highway Act. The reference to Section 13 in Order dated 26.03.2025 in Writ Petition No. 4033 of 2025 is inappropriate. Either it has to be Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act or Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highway Act. The coordinate bench did not identify the interest of the petitioners or held them entitled to claim compensation. The purport of the order of the coordinate bench is to grant liberty to apply for impleadment as is permissible in law.

12. The petitioners were not before the competent authorities when the award was passed or when the breakup of compensation was made while depositing the amount in the Court on 07.05.2012. For the first time they are claiming share in the compensation. Unless there is adjudication by the competent Civil Court recognizing right, title and interest of the petitioners, it is impermissible for them to claim share in the proceedings under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act. They are not remediless, but the remedy is to seek adjudication before the competent Civil Court.

13. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Shyamli Das Vs. Illa Chowdhry and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 300. In that case, the appellant and respondent no.3 were heirs of original owner, whose property was acquired. The appellant before filing Applications had filed Public Interest Litigation in 2000, suit in 2001 and applications before the Collector before claiming impleadment in the reference proceedings. The facts are distinguishable from the case at hand. Therefore, the observations in paragraph nos. 20 to 25 will not help the petitioner but those would operate against them.

14. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajput Shantaben Pratapji Legal Heirs of deceased Rajput Pratapji Dolaji Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Special Civil Application No.4259 of 2022, decided on 02.02.2023). The facts of that case are also distinguishable. The petitioner therein was the legal heirs of the original claimant. The judgment will not help the respondent.

15. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of coordinate bench in case of Vinayak Padmanabh Sinkre (deceased) through L.Rs. Ors. Vs. Vs. Vishnudas Dattatray Sadhale (2023) 2 Mah LJ 324. In that case, the petitioners tried to implead themselves in a reference. The following observations made in paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19 are useful, which read as under :-

                    “17. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the District Court while disposing a reference under the Land Acquisition Act is restricted by the term of reference itself. That being so, 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 for payment of compensation or part thereof, is raising a new dispute and, as such, such person cannot be impleaded.

                    18. In the case at hand, admittedly the petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 were not before the Collector nor their ancestors asserted their claim before the Collector and therefore, the application seeking to implead themselves in the reference proceedings, being persons interested has been rightly rejected by the reference Court.

                    19. In fact, assertions in the amendment/statement of claim, in no uncertain terms suggest that, claim raised by such persons will be a cause to new dispute, which was not before the Collector and that being so, adding such persons, is not necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the referred dispute. Rather it will completely change and definitely exceed the terms of reference, beyond the restricted jurisdiction of the District Court acting in reference under Land Acquisition Act.”

16. In the present case also the petitioners are raising new dispute requiring independent scrutiny.

17. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of another coordinate bench in case of Govind Narayan Lotlikar vs. Savitribai Raghuvira Lotlikar & Ors. AIR 1987 Bom 32. The relevant paragraph is para 7 of the judgment. I also propose to adopt the same course in holding that petitioners are not necessary parties.

18. The respondents have placed on record extract of Mutation Entry No. 506 disclosing partition amongst male members of the family. There is no adjudication of the competent forum as to whether the subject lands are joint family properties or separate properties.

The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach competent Civil Court claiming partition or their share in the compensation. I find that no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order.

19. The Writ Petition is dismissed.