1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2713 OF 2010 Ramrao @ Balasaheb s/o Shivroa Pande ...Appellant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Beed & another ...Respondents ..... Shri A.A. Mukhedkar, advocate for the appellant Shri B.J.Sonwane, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 27 th JANUARY, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri A.A. Mukhedkar, advocate for the appellant and Shri B.J.Sonwane, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and with their consent, appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2 The present First Appeal has been directed against the 2 judgment and order dated 26.8.2010, rendered by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Majalgaon, in L.A.R. No. 26 of 2005. The appellant/original claimant had filed the said Land Acquisition Reference No. 26 of 2005 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the said Land Reference came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.8.2010 holding that the said petition was time barred as well as the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation adequately. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, the original claimant/appellant herein has preferred the present First Appeal. 3 On perusal of the contents of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Judge has observed in para no. 14 thereof, which in respect of the aspect of limitation, that it is strange and surprising to note that although the petitioner/claimant had pleaded to have learnt about the contents of the award only after receiving the copy of the statement ‘E’, but after perusal of the said statement, nowhere it reveals that the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 35/- per Are. 4 It is pertinent to note that the award dated 5.11.1977 3 clearly mentions the said rate of Rs. 35/- per Are. Moreover, it is also significant to note that the petitioner himself had filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1 of 2000 on 22.12.1999 for withdrawal of the said compensation, which was deposited in court on 12.5.1989 as per order dated 12.7.1988 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 355 of 1983, and therefore, it cannot lie in his mouth to deny the contents of the impugned award. 5 Thus, consequently, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the said Reference filed by the appellant original claimant was apparently time barred and gave finding in that respect accordingly, and no interference therein is called for in the appellate jurisdiction considering the factual aspects and legal provisions. 6 Besides that, the learned Judge also discussed the another aspect that whether compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and after assessing the evidence before it, the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion and negatived the claim of the petitioner, which is a possible view to be adopted and no perversity is found therein apparently. 7 In the circumstances, the present appeal bears no 4 substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 8 In the result, present appeal, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/fa2713.10