:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 1994 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 1994 Janardan Dinkar Mhatre ..Appellant versus Dhondiram Bhau Mhatre & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. S. Datar for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 17H JANUARY,2005 DATE : 17H JANUARY,2005 DATE : 17H JANUARY,2005 ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody is present for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal filed by the persons who were claiming that they have a right of apportionment in the compensation awarded to the respondent No.1 Dhondiram Bhau Mhatre. The entire compensation for the land acquired was awarded to Dhondiram. The appellant (original counter claimant No.2) is claiming 1/8th share therein, his claim was rejected by the court below and therefore present appeal is filed. :2: 3. On the date of the acquisition the properties acquired stood in the name of Dhondiram. It was in his name on the revenue record since more than 30 years. In his evidence before the court he has stated that it was in his name since 1947 and it was on the basis of the statement made by Ganpat Pandurang Mhatre, a certified copy of which was filed at record page 22, Exhibit 22 shows that survey Nos. 246, 247 and 187 was in the name of Ganpat Pandurang Mhatre but on 7.4.1947 he gave statement to the Talathi to the effect that since the aforesaid land was in possession of Dhondiram it should be transferred to his name. 4. Ganpat Pandurang Mhatre was examined by the appellant as witness. But he did not stick to his statement obviously because he had changed his stand and wanted now to favour the appellant. He was confronted with his statement by the Advocate for Dhondiram. He denied to have made this statement. 5. The fact remains that the property in question was in the revenue record in the name of Dhondiram since 1947. The appellant claiming now his share, did nothing from 1947 till the issuance of notification under Section 4 either for changing the revenue record or for establishing his right. :3: It is only for the first time that after the award came to be passed that the claim is lodged. There is absolutely no evidence, firstly, to prove genealogical tree, what rights he acquired in the property, what share he acquired and why the appellant did not challenge revenue entry in the name of Dhondiram. In fact even though court is empowered under Section 30 to decide disputes for decision of such conflicted questions, it would have been proper on the part of the appellant to file the Civil Suit considering the complex issues involved. 6 The trial court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant to a share in the compensation. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant may recourse to other remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure subject to Law of Limitation. 17.1.2005 ( D. G. DESHPANDE, J.)