... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.22 OF 2006 AND CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.23 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.22 OF 2006 1. Shantaram Shanker Bhagat, son of late Shanker Bhagat, major in age, Agriculturist, 2. Shri Babu Shanker Bhagat, son of late Shanker Bhagat, major in age, Agriculturist, Both r/o House No.127, Bhagatwada, Nagarcem, Canacona, Goa. … Applicants v e r s u s 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa, K.R.C.L., Amey Guest House Davorlim road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete, Goa. 2. The Chief Engineer, K.R.C.L., 4 th floor, Souza Towers, Church Square, Panaji, Goa. … Respondents CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.23 OF 2006 Shri Shankar Datta Gaonkar, House No.853/4, Tembiwada, Nagarcem, Canacona, Goa. … Applicant ... 2 ... v e r s u s 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa, K.R.C.L., Amey Guest House Davorlim road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete, Goa. 2. The Chief Engineer, K.R.C.L., 4 th floor, Souza Towers, Church Square, Panaji, Goa. … Respondents Mr. P. A. Kamat, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM: Shri A. H. JOSHI DATE: 27th JULY, 2009. JUDGMENT: 1. By these application for review the apportionment done by this Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment is challenged. For ready reference the relevant part is quoted below: “15. The appellants shall be entitled to full compensation at the rate of Rs.19/- ... 3 ... per sq.mtr. (rupees nineteen per sq.mtr.) in respect of 307 sq.mtrs. Of land bearing survey no.105/13 and 60% of the compensation in respect of the remaining 795 sq.mtrs. Of land bearing survey no.95/6. (quoted from page 13 and 14, paperbook of First Appeal No.22 of 2008) 2. The grievance of the applicants is that in view of the reported judgment of this Court in 2001 (2) Goa Law Times 63, the Goa Daman and Diu Industrial Development Corporation v. Shri Vassu Jaidev Gaonkar, the tenant who becomes deemed owner becomes entitled to full compensation. 3. The case proceeds on the certain admitted background as follows: a) The Land Acquisition Officer had done apportionment in the ratio of 60% and 40% between the tenant and the owner. ... 4 ... b) The tenant who claims total amount of compensation and does not accept sharing of the land, did not challenge the said apportionment under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and accepted the entitlement by way of sharing at 60:40 ratio . c) This apportionment had attained finality. d) The land owner was not a party in the reference case under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in these review applications as well. 4. The remedy in law under which apportionment could have been gone into is under section 30 of the Act and not by way of a review application. 5. Present the review applications are not a lis in which the question of apportionment can be gone into. ... 5 ... 6. The applications have no merits and are dismissed. Rule is discharged with costs. A. H. JOSHI lh/.