IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.886 OF 2002 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.1 OF 1991 IN L.A.Q./SR 43 MAJAS Shamanna Nagraju ...Appellants. Vs. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. A.N.Jakhadi AGP for the appellant. Mr. S.R.Rajguru for respondent No. 1 & 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : January 15, 2009. : January 15, 2009. : January 15, 2009. P.C. 1. By this Appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 5th April, 2002 in Land Acquisition Reference 1 of 1991. 2. The Original Claimant of whom the appellants are the legal representatives had filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relating to plot of land admeasuring 653 sq.meters which has been acquired. 3. The learned Single Judge has found that the claimant had no right, title or interest in the land acquired and, therefore, has rejected the reference. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant firstly contended that the land which according to him has been purchased in the year 1990 has not actually been acquired but still the same has been clubbed with the acquired land. In short, according to him, land which is not the subject matter of acquisition has been taken over by the Government. If that is so, filing reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is obviously not the remedy available to such a person. The reference under Section 18 can be made among other things for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and not for honorarium of the land, which has been taken over by the Government allegedly unauthorizedly. 5. The learned Counsel further submitted that pursuant to the agreement of sale which was entered into in the year 1968 structures were constructed by the original claimant on the land and she continued to be in possession after termination of the agreement therefore, the original claimant was entitled for compensation when the land was acquired in 1979. 6. In our opinion, this submission has also no substance as the legal representative of the original claimant, who has been examined as witness, had admitted that after the agreement to sell was terminated, the possession of the claimant was in the capacity of a trespasser. The Single Judge has also considered that the structures which were erected on the land were totally unauthorised structures, inasmuch as no building plan was sanctioned by any Competent Authority. 7. The learned Counsel submitted that the statements and the deposition of the witness in the claim that the claimant was in possession of the land after termination of the agreement of sale as a trespasser has been wrongly recorded. If that is so, the remedy of the claimant or that of the legal representative was to move the learned Judge for correction in the deposition immediately after the deposition was recorded and grievance in that regard cannot be entertained by the Appeal Court. 8. Taking overall view of the matter therefore we see no substance in the Appeal. Appeal fails and is dismissed. [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]