1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2882 OF 2009 1.Shri Ramdas Tukaram Kedar and ors .. Petitioners Vs 1. The Special Land Acquiston Offcer, Irrigation No.1 and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Kishor S Patil i/b P.N.Joshi , Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for Respondent nos 1 to 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 01/09/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Irrigation No.I, Nashik, rejecting the petitioners’ application under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). 3. Admittedly, the petitioners had filed application seeking reference under section 18 of the Act, claiming enhanced compensation for the trees (guava trees) standing on their T 2 acquired land. The reference was allowed by the concerned court and the compensation for the trees was enhanced. It is the petitioners case that they had 674 trees in their land. However, when they made application under section 18 of the Act they sought enhancement of the amount of compensation only in respect of 374 trees and, as stated by them in their application under section 28A, through oversight, an enhancement remained to be sought in respect of the remaining 300 trees. In view thereof, they made an application under section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of the amount of compensation in respect of the remaining 300 Guava trees. 4. At the outset, in my opinion, a claimant, such as the petitioner, who files application seeking reference under section 18 of the Act, chooses to seek enhancement in respect of a part of the acquired property, cannot maintain the application under section 28A in respect of the remaining property. Section 28A, in my opinion, is available only to the persons interested in all other lands covered by the Notification under section 4 sub- clause (1), and who have not made application to the Collector under section 18. The petitioners do not fall in that category. The petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, chose to seek enhancement only in respect of the part of property, i.e for 3 374 trees out of 674. It would not be possible to assume that the petitioners, through oversight, missed to seek enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of 300 trees. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)