1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.310 OF 2008 Shri Raosaheb Tukaram Naik, since deceased through his LRs a) Dr. Charudatta Raosaheb Naik & Ors. ..Appellants. (Orig. Claimants) Vs. 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for the Appellants. Mr.A.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent no.1. Mr.Y.T. Pillai for Respondent nos.2 to 4. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : 6TH MAY, 2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande for the Appellants. Mr.Patil, AGP appears for Respondent no.1 and Mr.Pillai appears for Respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. An application under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was decided by the learned 4th Ad-hoc District Judge at Pune and the same came to be disposed off on 18.10.2007 by directing the parties to approach the appropriate forum to decide their title and interest on the suit land which came to 2 be acquired in Land Acquisition Case No.73 of 2003. The suit land forms part of Survey No.2B/1, admeasuring about 15 Are at village Bopodi within the Pune Municipal Corporation limits. 3. The dispute of sharing the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, was between two families i.e. the family of Tukaram Naik on one hand and Shri Sadashiv Bhat on the other hand. Another Claimant, by name Shri Shrirang Bandoba Kamble has also appeared in Land Reference No.150 of 2004 and claims share in the compensation amount on the ground that his father was a watchman on the acquired land and was engaged by the Bhat family. His claim was not entertained by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge on the ground that there was no reference of taking possession of any part of land from Shrirang Bandoba Kamble and he was left with the remedy to approach the proper forum to adjudicate his claim or right. 4. The said Shrirang Kamble had not filed any Appeal before this Court and Mr.Deshpande, on instructions from both the parties states that they have not received any notice of proceedings initiated by the said Shrirang Kamble till this date. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge, as noted earlier, has directed the Claimants and the third party to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their respective shares/title/right. 5. During the pendency of this Appeal both the parties negotiated for an amicable settlement so as to share total sale compensation of Rs.55,21,355/- alongwith interest, if any, and they were successful in the same. 3 6. Settlement terms in the form of consent terms have been signed by the parties alongwith their learned Advocates and the parties have decided to put an end to the dispute of share of the compensation. 7. Respondent nos.2 to 4 have given up their claim to share the compensation amount as they have received an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the Appellants, by a Demand Draft as well as a cheque. This has been confirmed by their power of attorney Col. Dilip Vasudeo Kher (retd.). 8. All the Appellants as well as Col. Dilip Vasudeo Kher (power of attorney holder of Respondent nos. 2 to 4) are present before the Court. Each of them verified his signature on the consent terms and Mr. Deshpande, the learned Advocate for the Appellants has endorsed that the terms of the consent terms are being explained to all the parties in Marathi. 9. As per the settlement, the dispute of sharing the compensation amount on account of the claimed share or title in the acquired property has been brought to an end and, on receipt of Rs.14,00,000/-, the Respondent nos.2 to 4 have consented that the deposited amount of compensation at Rs.55,21,355/- is permitted to be withdrawn by the Appellants and that the said Respondent nos.2 to 4 shall have no dispute or grievance or any further claim regarding their share in the acquired land or in the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. The learned counsel for both the parties therefore prayed for allowing the Appeal by consent so as to quash and set aside the impugned order passed 4 by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge at Pune on the basis of the settlement arrived between the parties.\ 11. Hence, by consent, the Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 18.10.2007 in Land Reference No.150 of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and the shares of the Appellants as well as Respondent nos.2 to 4 stand finally settled in terms of the consent terms. 12. Photostat copies of the Power of Attorney are taken on record. 13. Parties to bear their own costs. (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)