ORDER : 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “[b] This Hon’ble Court may be pleased issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of such nature and further be pleased to quash and set aside common order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar pursis for withdrawal of amount as well as application at Exbt:24 in LAR No.22 of 2013; [c] Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay implementation, execution & operation of common order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar pursis for withdrawal of amount as well application at Exbt:24 in LAR No.22 of 2013 and further be pleased to restrain the private respondent No.1 herein from withdrawing the amount of compensation;” 2. Brief facts giving rise to the petition are stated as under: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Block No.76/66 situated at village Jaludhara Mota, Taluka Dehgam, District Gandhinagar was purchased by father of the respondent No.1 – Maijibhai Mathurbhai from one Keshabhai Motibhai Valand by paying a consideration of Rs.18,000/-, out of which, Rs.9,000/- was paid by the petitioner, and thereby it is a joint property. Since the petitioner was not an agriculturist, the said land was purchased in the name of father of respondent No.1 and an agreement was executed between them on stamp paper indicating that they are co-owners of the land in question. 2.2 Subsequently, the land was acquired by the acquiring body for the purpose of constructing canal under Narmada Project and it was decided between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 that whatever compensation that may be awarded in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid land, it will be shared equally between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The consent letter was given by petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1 as per the case of the petitioner and pursuant to that consent letter which was given in the year 2002 it was decided between the parties that both the parties will get equal share by dividing the amount of compensation awarded into two halves. The consent letter was given by petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1 as per the case of the petitioner and pursuant to that consent letter which was given in the year 2002 it was decided between the parties that both the parties will get equal share by dividing the amount of compensation awarded into two halves. Accordingly, when as per the award an amount of Rs.44,000/- was awarded towards compensation of acquisition of the land acquired, after deducting the total legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-, the remaining amount of Rs.34,000/- was divided into two parts and Rs.17,000/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 whose name was reflecting in the award. 2.3 After the aforesaid amount of Rs.17,000/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondent No.1, it is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner refused to pay the share of the petitioner as allegedly agreed by the respondent No.1 by way of consent letter of 2002 and thereafter the petitioner preferred Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 2004 before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar seeking permanent injunction against the disbursement of the amount of compensation in favour of respondent No.1. The aforesaid suit was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.2013 and the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Civil Appeal No.7 of 2017 before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. That appeal is pending. 2.4 In the meantime, the respondent No.1 preferred application under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the Civil Court by the Collector in the Land Reference Case No.22 of 2013 and the land reference case was decided in favour of respondent No.1 and the amount of compensation was enhanced and an amount of Rs.26,89,592/- was deposited before the court by the acquiring body. 2.5 When the respondent No.1 preferred an application for disbursement of the said amount, the petitioner raised objection by preferring objection application against that disbursement stating that the amount may not be disbursed in favour of respondent No.1, and therefore, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar vide order dated 10.5.2019 after considering the objections raised by the petitioner allowed the payment pursis in favour respondent No.1 and directed that an amount of Rs.29,82,832/- deposited on 9.1.2018 in the Indian Bank, which was put in fixed deposit be disbursed in favour of respondent No.1 along with interest incurred on the fixed deposit after due verification of the respondent No.1 by way of cheque. 2.6 The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in LAR No.22 of 2013 in this petition. 3. Heard Mr. Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Kamlesh Sheth, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhamare, submitted that it is true that the petitioner was never an agriculturist and land was never in the name of the petitioner, however, it was decided by the petitioner and respondent No.1 to equally share the compensation that may be received pursuant to the acquisition of land. However, after giving the share to the petitioner in the first installment of the compensation received by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 refused to give share in the subsequent installments of compensation as well as in respect of enhanced compensation in respect of the land which was acquired, which was in joint ownership of the petitioner and respondent No.1, and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 2004. It is submitted by Mr. Bhamare that vide order dated 6.5.2013 though the suit of the petitioner was dismissed, the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to remain present before the Court and could not lead evidence in her favour, but the same was not decided on merit. The petitioner has already challenged the aforesaid order dated 6.5.2013 by preferring Civil Appeal No.7 of 2017 before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. The petitioner has already challenged the aforesaid order dated 6.5.2013 by preferring Civil Appeal No.7 of 2017 before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. He submitted that pendency of appeal can be construed as continuation of suit proceedings, and therefore, when the rights of the petitioner and respondent No.1 are not crystallized by the competent civil court and matter is sub judice, the respondent No.1 should not be permitted to get the amount disbursed in his favour. He further submitted that if the order impugned in this petition is permitted to continue, it would cause irreversible situation whereby even if the petitioner succeeds in the civil proceedings, he will not be in a position to get the fruits of his success in the civil proceedings pending before the competent civil court. He apprehends that if he is not protected at this stage his appeal would become infructuous, and therefore, he prayed to allow the petition by quashing and setting the impugned order. 5. As against the above, Mr. Kamlesh Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, submitted that it is true that civil appeal is pending before the competent civil court, but the fact remains that at no point of time award was passed in favour of the petitioner. The amount, which is awarded i.e. enhanced compensation was awarded in the land reference proceedings wherein also the petitioner has never participated, and therefore, the petitioner has no locus to claim the compensation which is awarded exclusively in favour of respondent No.1. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth disputed the submission of learned advocate Mr. Bhamare that at any point of time the respondent No.1 has paid an amount of Rs.17,000/- by way of giving 50% from the amount received by respondent No.1 as compensation of the land which was acquired. A detailed affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent No.1 wherein the respondent No.1 has tried to explain his stand by stating the facts of filing the civil suit and appeal, which is pending against the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by the civil court. Learned advocate Mr. A detailed affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent No.1 wherein the respondent No.1 has tried to explain his stand by stating the facts of filing the civil suit and appeal, which is pending against the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by the civil court. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth draw attention of this Court to the reasoning given by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar while passing the impugned order dated 10.05.2019 and pointed out that even prima facie the petitioner could not establish his right over the land in question and accordingly he is not entitled to payment of any compensation. He further submitted that the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in respect of amount of compensation is subject matter pending before the civil court, and therefore, by entering into the arena of adjudicating the rights of the parties would amount to interfering with the jurisdiction of the civil court, and therefore, this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bharat Vyas submitted that as per the order passed by the reference Court, amount of enhanced compensation is already deposited and is already paid to the respondent No.1, and therefore, appropriate order be passed in accordance with law. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the fact that the plaint of Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 2004 does not form a part of the record, however, on inquiry it is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Bhamare that the suit was filed for mandatory injunction praying the court not to disburse the amount of enhanced compensation in favour of the respondent No.1 and also considering the fact that the petitioner has failed in the suit and even in the pending appeal also, there is no order in favour of the petitioner. Prima facie it can be said that the petitioner has failed to establish his right in respect of the land which is already acquired and in respect of compensation paid to the respondent No.1. In fact, in the acquisition proceedings also, it was the respondent No.1 only who was party to the proceedings. Prima facie it can be said that the petitioner has failed to establish his right in respect of the land which is already acquired and in respect of compensation paid to the respondent No.1. In fact, in the acquisition proceedings also, it was the respondent No.1 only who was party to the proceedings. Merely because civil appeal is pending against the order dismissing the suit preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim a relief of not to disburse the amount of compensation in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of pendency of civil appeal. While passing the impugned order dated 10.05.2019 the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar observed that the petitioner has failed to establish prima facie case in his favour and while allowing the payment pursis, directed that the amount be paid to respondent No.1 and accordingly the amount is paid to respondent No.1. Considering the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 2004 dated 13.06.2013 as well as order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, I do not find any reason to take a different view than the view taken by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar while allowing the payment pursis preferred by respondent No.1. As far as the rights of the petitioner are concerned, it is clarified that the observations made by this Court in this order are tentative and prima facie in nature and the civil court while deciding the Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2017 shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order and may decide the appeal independently in accordance with law on the basis of the material placed before the Court. It is needless to say that if the petitioner succeeds in the civil litigation, arising out of the Regular Civil Suit No. 40 of 2004, then whatever payment that the respondent No.1 has received would be subject to final outcome of the said litigation. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Notice discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.