1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side First Appeal No.971 of 2009 Shri Vishnu Dvarkanath Patil Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.G.N.Salunke i/b. Mr.D.N.Gondhali for appellant. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, AGP for resp.no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR,JJ. July 16, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Salunke with Mr.Gondhali, the learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs.Mulekar, the learned AGP appears for the respondent – State. 2. The appellant’s land admeasuring 3720 sq.mtrs. From Survey Nos.62, 63, 64 and 66 of village Ulwe, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad came to be acquired for the New Bombay Project pursuant to the notification dated 3/2/1970 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) and the SLAO passed his award under Section 11 on 22/11/1985. The appellant did not apply for enhancement of 2 compensation under Section 18 of the Act and purportedly on account of his ignorance of law and illiteracy. However, he came to know of the award passed by the District Court at Raigad in LAR No.313 of 1987 and thereby increasing the market rate from Rs.1.50 per sq.mtr. To Rs.8 per sq.mtr. By taking benefit of this award passed in LAR No.313 of 1987 the appellant submitted an application under Section 28-A of the Act and the same was referred to the Court resulting into the impugned award dated 28/10/2004 whereby the market rate has been enhanced to Rs.12/- per sq.mtrs. 3. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division who passed the impugned award noted that the award passed in LAR No.313 of 1987 was under challenge before this Court in First Appeal No. 951 of 1991 and by a common judgment dated 12th April 2005 First Appeal No.83 of 1992 and First Appeal No.959 of 1991 came to be decided by this Court (Single Bench) and this Court was pleased to enhance the market rate to Rs.12/- per sq. mtr. From Rs.8/- per sq.mtr. By following the said common judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.959 of 1991 and First Appeal No.83 of 1992, the Reference Court was pleased to fix the market rate at Rs.12/- per sq.mtr. Thus as against the 3 market rate of Rs.1.50 per sq.mtr. Granted by the SLAO, the claimant has got market rate at Rs.12/- per sq.mtr. by the impugned award. 4. Mr.Salunke, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the application filed by the appellant on 11/5/1990 under Section 28-A of the Act and prayed for further enhancement of the market rate to Rs.15/- per sq.mtr. However, we are bound by the common judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.83 of 1992 and First Appeal No.959 of 1991 and we must also note that the enhancement claimed by the applicant was based on the award passed in LAR No.313 of 1987. 5. Mrs.Mulekar, the learned AGP rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. [(2006) 4 SCC 538] wherein the Supreme Court held as under: “9. We hold that under Section 28-A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference 4 under Section 18 of the Act. In case of reduction of compensation by the superior courts, the applicants under Section 28-A may be directed to refund the excess amount received by them in the light of reduced compensation finally awarded.” The Supreme Court further held that those claiming higher compensation and claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act are bound by the decree as modified by the superior courts and consequently the applicants under Section 28-A of the Act would be entitled for higher compensation, if any, granted by the appeal Court while deciding the award passed on an application filed under Section 18 of the Act and which award was relied upon by the applicants under Section 28-A of the Act. 6. Hence this appeal fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)