cra796-09.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.796 OF 2009 Sau. Savit V. Chavan .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Vijay Killedar i/by Mr.Prasad Kulkarni for the applicant. Mrs.Vaidehi Mhaispurkar, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. 2nd MAY 2011. P.C.: . Admit. Heard by consent. By the present application, the applicant challenges the order dated 14th August 2009 vide which the application made by the applicant for referring his claim for enhanced compensation to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be rejected. 2 The learned A.G.P submits that since the applicant had given an undertaking that he will not claim enhanced compensation, there is no error in the impugned order. cra796-09.doc 2 3 A party cannot be compelled to give an undertaking which restricts his rights available to him under the statute, the same would be against public policy. It is a settled law that when an application is made to the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act he has no other option but to refer the same to the adjudication of the Court. 4 In that view of the matter, the Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5 The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to refer the claim of the petitioner to the Competent Court. 6 The respondents to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (B.R.GAVAI, J)