1 24 wp4261.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4261 OF 2023 M/s Saikrupa Housing Developers, Nagpur through its Partner Shri Sunil Anantrao Koshatiwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri U.P. Dable, Advocate for petitioner. Ms M.R. Kavimandan, AGP / APP for respondent/State. Shri A.D. Gabhane, Advocate for respondent nos.5, 6A,6B, 7 to 10. CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE : 13.01.2026. 1. The petition challenges the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-3 (Special Court MIHAN), Nagpur in LAR No.294/2007 below Exh.36 thereby rejecting application of the petitioner-Company for intervention in the reference application filed by the respondent nos.5 to 10. 2. The contention of the petitioner-Company is that they had purchased the portion of the land which was acquired by the respondent nos.1 to 4 – Government. However, since the name of the petitioner – Company was not mutated in the revenue records, they were not issued notice by the respondent no.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer and they remained unaware about the award proceedings held under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. 3. It is further contended by the petitioner – Company that the amount of award was properly shared by the 2026:BHC-NAG:634 2 24 wp4261.23.odt respondent no.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer with the petitioner. However, the respondent no.5 filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without disclosing the fact that a portion of the said land has already been sold to the petitioner – Company by the respondent nos.5 to 10. Having got the knowledge of the said reference, the petitioner–Company filed an application for intervention. However, the said application came to be rejected by the impugned order since the respondent no.5 had disputed the ownership of the petitioner – Company with regards to the portion of the said land. The order of rejection of the application for intervention of the petitioner – Company is challenged here in this petition. 4. It is common ground that Reference under Section 18 has been disposed by the reference Court and amount of award has been enhanced. Since, the reference has already been disposed of, the petition challenging the order below Exhibit-36 rejecting the application for intervention does not survive in the wake of disposal of reference. However, the petitioner–Company may seek appropriate remedy either by filing the appeal or civil suit or any other legal remedy available to them under the law. The petition is disposed of as infructuous. 5. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (M.W. Chandwani, J.) Wagh