1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2008 IN L.A.R. NO. 15 OF 1986 The Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-cum- Custodian of Evacuee Properties, Maharashtra State & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Shri Dashrath Kundya Tandel since deceased through his legal heirs:- 1-a. Smt. Sinubai DashrathTandel & Ors.. Respondents Ms. S.P.Manchekar, AGP, for the Appellant/State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. DATE: 11th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned AGP for the appellants. The appellant No.1 is the Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-cum-Custodian of evacuee Properties of the State of Maharashtra and appellant No.2 is the Custodian. Appellant No.3 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is the original applicant and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the only opponents. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had submitted Land Reference No.15 of 1986 to the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad-alibag as a reference under Section 30 for apportionment of compensation amongst the tenants occupying the land and the allottee of the evacuee property. The respondent No.2, was the opponent 2 of Shyamlal Hariram, who was the allottee while the opponent no.1 - Dashrath appears to be the tenant. The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag held that the tenant had no right to claim compensation and the allottee alone was entitled to receive the compensation. The appellants have challenged the said judgment passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag. 3 From the facts stated above, it is clear that the real dispute would be between the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The appellants cannot be the aggrieved party and therefore liable to pay compensation to the party who is found entitled by the Court. The opponent no.3, who is the respondent before this Court, may be the aggrieved party. They could prefer an appeal against the said judgment and order. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the present appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the appellants. The learned AGP fairly concedes that similar order was passed by this Court (Coram Abhay S. Oka, J.) on 17.3.2008 in First Appeal (ST) No.29653 of 1992. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. 3 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)