KAFIA BEGAM BABIB HAIDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the decision of respondent no.3 dated 14-12-2007 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to refer the dispute as to apportionment between the petitioner, on one hand, and the respondent nos.4 and 5, on the other hand, has been rejected on the ground that the Civil Court has not decided the title between the parties or there are no pending proceedings pertaining to title between the parties.

(3.) Mr. A.B. Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Collector was bound to decide whether the petitioner has made out a case that there is a dispute as to title between the parties. The communication dated 14-12-2007 is a total misdirection in that respect, inasmuch as, the respondent no.3 has not considered the matter in the proper perspective.