1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application (caf) No. 2590/11 (In X Obj. St. No. 1390/01 in First Appeal No. 19 of 1997 [D]) State of Maharashtra ...Versus... Jeevan Tukaram Marodkar (dead) thr. L.Rs. Dnyaneshwar Jeevan Marodkar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Deshpande Advocate for the applicant/Res. Ms. Sangeeta Gaikee AGP for appellant/State. …. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 11.10.2011. Heard. Pursis St. No. 9005/11 is accepted. CAF No. 2590/11 for early hearing of Cross-objection is allowed. C.A. disposed of. Cross-Objection No. 41/11 Learned counsel for respondent submitted that F.A. No. 19/97 has already been decided by this Court on 24.11.2010 but the Cross-Objection St. No. 1390/01 filed on 19.1.2001 was not decided because the same was not listed. The counsel admits that there is a failure on the part of the counsel to point out 2 the pendency of Cross-objection when the appeal was heard and decided. Since F.A. No. 19/97 along with connected appeals has been decided on 24.11.2010 and those appeals filed by the State were dismissed confirming the rate at Rs. one lac per hectare and Rs.1.25 lacs per hectare, it is not possible to adjourn the hearing of the cross-objection, as prayed for by the learned counsel for cross-objector, particularly when the appeals relate to the year 1997 and this Court having relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & anr. v. Aniruddha Shriram Ganorkar reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1575. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his submissions to the cross- objection relied upon a sale-deed dated 29.8.1993 but is unable to point out the details of the said sale-deed, inasmuch as no Exhibit Number to the said sale-deed appears to have been given. The counsel does not have even copy of the said sale-deed nor is in a position to tell whether the same was proved in accordance with law so that the court could read the same as admissible evidence. At any rate, the rate granted by the trial court is Rs. one lac per hectare as Section 4 notification is of December 1993. Looking to the rates arrived at by the Reference Court and looking to the rate granted by this Court in substantive appeals so also the rate in the judgment in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1575, I find that the 3 Cross-objection has no merit. In the result, Cross-objection No. 41/11 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Judge /TA/