1 213 fa.593.94 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Nivrutti Pandurang Jadhav. ... Respondent ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25 th January, 2011. JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. This is an appeal filed under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Respondent is the claimant in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The Reference was decided on 26 th November, 1982 by the Reference Court by granting enhancement in market value. An application for review of the judgment and award was filed by the 2 213 fa.593.94 Respondent – claimant on 14 th July, 1988 claiming statutory benefits on the basis of the amendment carried out to the said Act by the Act No. 68 of 1984, which came into force with effect from 24 th September, 1984. The review petition has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order by granting statutory benefits under Section 23 (2) as well as Section 28 of the said Act as amended by the Act No. 68 of 1984. 2 After having heard the learned AGP appearing for the Appellant, I find that the learned trial Judge has committed an error. When the original reference under Section 18 of the said Act was decided, the amendment made by the Act No. 68 of 1984 was not on the statute book. In the circumstances, the Reference Court while deciding original reference under Section 18 of the said Act could not have granted statutory benefits as per the amendment which was not on the statute book when the reference was denied. Obviously, there was no error or mistake apparent on the face of record committed by the Reference Court. In exercise of power of review under Order XLVII of the said Code, the statutory benefits which became available subsequent to the 3 213 fa.593.94 date of the original award under Section 18 of the said Act could not have been granted. Only on this ground, the appeal must succeed. However, other remedies available to the Respondent will have to be kept open. 3 Hence, I pass the following order: i. Subject to what is observed above, the impugned judgment and order dated 7 th February, 1992 is quashed and set aside and the Review Application No. 10 1986 stands dismissed ; ii. There will be no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]