1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1715 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant. Versus Bali Bhagwan Chormale & Another ..Respondents. Smt.Geeta P. Mulekar, AGP for the appellant. Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar, J. DATE : 23nd March 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Advocates for the Appellant and the Respondents. 2. This Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 30th September 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi. By the impugned order, the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act to the respondents has been enhanced by a sum of Rs.17,820/­ together with statutory benefits under the said Act. 3. In the present case, lands belonging to the respondent ad­ measuring 1 hectare and 62 R out of Gut No.169 situated at Village Dhorale 2 Taluka Barshi, District Solapur were sought to be acquired by the State Government for the purpose of benefited Zone Hingani Medium Project, Hingani, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. A Notification in that behalf was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11th May 1988. Award under the Land Acquisition Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation of Rs.34,020/­ to the respondents. Challenging the aforesaid order, the respondents filed Reference Application in the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi and by the impugned Judgment dated 30th September 2005, the learned Judge allowed the enhanced compensation in the sum of Rs.17,820/­ together with statutory benefits that are available under the Land Acquisition Act. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present Appeal is filed by the State Government. 4. The grievance of the State Government is that in the present case the learned Judge has granted enhanced compensation based on the sale instance dated 4­4­1989, which is executed after issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6th January 1988. Although the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court is of a subsequent date, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said sale instance is not comparable. In the absence of any material to the contrary and in view of the smallness of the differential amount, in my view, the decision of the Reference Court in determining the enhanced compensation 3 by relying upon the sale deed dated 4­4­1989 cannot be faulted. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents however, contended that the Judgment and Decree passed by the Reference Court is wrong because the compensation though calculated in the name of the mother, compensation has not been given to the mother. In my view, such a plea cannot be raised by the respondents in the appeal filed by the Revenue where the only issue is, whether the enhanced compensation determined by the Reference Court is sustainable in law, or not. Admittedly, the respondents have neither filed any cross­objections nor filed any independent appeal. In these circumstances, I do not find any fault with the order passed by the Reference Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. The Special Land Acquisition officer is directed to pay to the respondents the enhanced compensation together with the statutory benefits and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act within a period of six months from today. The Advocate for the respondent is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the S.L.A.O. forthwith. (J.P. Devadhar, J.)