Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No. 3-A. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.3 Subhadrabai died and her legal heir i.e. respondent 3-A has been brought on record. Mr. Sonwalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the order passed by this Court directing the petitioner to deposit the cost of ` 2000/-has been complied with. He also points out the noting made by the Registry that the amount has been deposited on 17.3.2011. 4. There is no dispute that before respondent No.2, deceased respondent No.3 Subhadarabai was the applicant, who had filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for enhancement of the amount of compensation, in view of the award passed by the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the land acquired for the public purpose. There is also no dispute among the parties that deceased respondent No.3 was owner of land Gat No.467/2 to the extent of 3 H 67 Are, situated at Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad and the said subject land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of Narangi-Sarangimedium project at Vaijapur i.e. for public purpose. The counsel for the petitioner states that the status of the petitioner is the acquiring body. The award under Section 28-A, if passed in future by the respondent No.2, it will have to be complied with by making necessary financial arrangement by the present petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, acquiring body was necessary party and it ought to have been joined as respondent, by respondent No.3 Subhadrabai, in her application, filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 5. There is no dispute among the parties that the present petitioner be joined as respondent in application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, before the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.3-A. The respondent No.2 passed award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2004/SLAO/J/SP/II/AR 23/91 on 16.10.2004. The counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on various judgments/orders passed by this Court. The compilation of such orders passed in writ petition Nos. The counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on various judgments/orders passed by this Court. The compilation of such orders passed in writ petition Nos. 1597 of 2007 with 1598 of 2007 with 1599 of 2007 with 1600 of 2007 with 1601 of 2007 with 1602 of 2007 with 1604 of 2007 with 1605 of 2007 etc. has been placed on record. This order is passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram R.M. Borde, J.) on 5.2.2008. This order, passed in a bunch of petitions, decided by this Court, by common judgment/order dated 5.2.2008, is made available by advocate Mr. Sonwalkar to learned AGP and advocate Mr. Patni, who fairly concede the legal position that the present petitioner ought to have been joined as party by respondent No.3 and it ought to have been heard by the respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Patni and Mr. Sonwalkar, appearing for respective parties, on instructions, make a statement that similar other petitions were also filed by the present petitioner. It was a group of some writ petitions and the facts involved in those writ petitions were also same i.e. the applicants who have filed applications under section 28-A have not joined the acquiring body as party respondents. Those matters have been remitted back by this Court and which are likely to be heard on 16.7.2012, by respondent No.2. 7. Mr. Patni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3-A states that to save the time, order impugned in this petition i.e. the award passed in favour of deceased respondent No.3 Subhadrabai may be quashed and set aside and the case of respondent No.3 may be remanded/remitted back to respondent No.2 with further direction to join the present petitioner as party respondent in the said application, filed by respondent No.3 Subhadrabai under Section 28-A. The parties may be heard on 16.7.2012 and further orders may be passed by respondent No.2. This proposition is accepted by the learned counsel Mr. Sonwalkar as well as the learned AGP, who are present on behalf of the respective parties. 8. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I am inclined to allow the writ petition and to quash and set aside the award passed by the respondent No.2 in favour of deceased respondent No. 3 on 16.10.2004. Sonwalkar as well as the learned AGP, who are present on behalf of the respective parties. 8. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I am inclined to allow the writ petition and to quash and set aside the award passed by the respondent No.2 in favour of deceased respondent No. 3 on 16.10.2004. I am also inclined to remit the case back to the respondent No.2 with further directions to respondent No.3-A i.e. legal heir of respondent No.3 Subhadrabai to join the present petitioner as party respondent and also further direct the respondent No.2 to hear the parties i.e. the present petitioner and respondent No.3-A i.e. legal heir of deceased respondent No.3 Subhadrabai and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of law. The present petitioner and the respondent No.3-A are at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. 9. Writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned passed by respondent No. 2 on 16.10.2004 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by respondent No.3 Subhadrabai is remanded back to respondent No.2 with a direction to respondent No.3-A to join the present petitioner as party respondent in that application. Respondent No.2 is also directed to hear the present petitioner and respondent No. 3-A and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six months from 16.7.2012. The present petitioner and respondent No.3-A to appear before respondent No.2 on 16.7.2012. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. 10. The costs amount of ` 2000/-is deposited by the petitioner. Mr. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-A seeks liberty to withdraw the said amount. Heard Mr. Sonwalkar, counsel for the petitioner and also learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the facts of the case, in my view, the prayer made by Mr. Patni is reasonable. Respondent No.3-A is permitted to withdraw the amount of ` 2000/- deposited by the petitioner. 11. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.