IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.358 OF 2000 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.739 OF 1986 Maneklal Ratanchand Chopda ... Appellant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. V.Z. Kankaria for the appellant. Ms. G.P. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C.: The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30th June, 2000 in First Appeal No.739 of 1986. Vide this order, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the reference court dated 6th December, 1985 and remanded the matter for determination afresh in accordance with law and in view of the observations made in the said order. 2. The appellant has challenged this order before this court in the present appeal. The Division Bench of this court on application being taken out by the appellant directed that the bank guarantee in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge need not be effected and operation of the impugned order was stayed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment in appeal. The learned Single Judge after discussing the evidence on record has remanded the matter with the observations that the land in question has to be treated as an agricultural land. The matter is remanded to the reference court for the purpose of determination of compensation on the basis of evidence on record treating that the acquired land is agricultural land. The contention raised before us is that this observation of the learned Single Judge is contrary to law as the land has a great potential. Needless to notice that nature of the land is a concept different than the potential of the land. Even now, it is not in dispute that the documents on record show that on the date of acquisition, the land was agricultural land. 4. We are unable to accept the contention. Obviously, it will be open to the applicant to show the potential of the land as on the date of acquisition by leading proper evidence. While the land would be an agricultural land, no document has been pointed out to us which shows that the land was put to any other use except agricultural land on the date of acquisition. 5. We see no reason to interfere. Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. The claimant shall appear before the reference court on 19th December, 2008. In the event of default of appearance, the reference court shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. We are passing this direction primarily for the reason that despite the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30th June, 2000, period of 8 years have gone by and still the file has not been sent to the reference court. There is no stay to the proceeding during the pendency of appeal. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.