ash 1 fa-674.94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.674 OF 1994 Aruna N. Shinde. -- Appellant Vs 1. Jagannath Bajirao Shinde, 2. Narayan Jagannath Shinde, 3. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents -- Shri L.S. Gaikwad for the Appellant. Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.3. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: . This Appeal arises out of a Reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The Appellant is the wife of the 2nd Respondent. 1st Respondent is the father-in-law of the Appellant. The land standing in the name of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was notified for acquisition under the said Act. The Award under section 11 of the said Act was made by Land Acquisition Officer. It appears that the Appellant objected to the compensation being granted to the 1st and 2nd Respondents and, therefore, the Reference under section 30 of the said ash 2 fa-674.94 Act was made for considering the claim for apportionment. By the impugned Judgment and award, the Reference Court held that the 1st Respondent was entitled to receive the compensation offered under the award under section 11 of the said Act. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant applied under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for granting maintenance allowance against the 2nd respondent and the maintenance has been granted by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the Appellant has undivided share in the acquired land and that in any case the Appellant has a charge over the property of the husband for recovery of the maintenance amount. He, therefore, submitted that the Appellant is entitled to a share in the compensation amount. 3. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the record. A statement of claim was filed by the Appellant before the Reference Court. In the statement of claim, it was not even pleaded that the acquired property was an ancestral property and/or joint family property in which the Appellant has a share equal to that of her husband. The specific pleading in the statement of claim is that the Appellant has a right to claim the maintenance. Without even contending that the property was an ancestral or joint family property, ash 3 fa-674.94 it was contended that the Appellant has 1/3rd share in the acquired property. 4. Perusal of the deposition of the Appellant shows that she has not come out with the case that the property under acquisition was an ancestral or a joint family property in which she has undivided share. Her claim was based on the order of maintenance passed in her favour for claiming a share in the compensation awarded by the award under section 11 of the said Act. The Appellant was required to establish her right, title or interest in the acquired land. In absence of any pleading and the proof in that behalf, the Appellant was not entitled to claim any share in the compensation amount. 5. If the order passed under Section 125 of the Code is not being complied with, appropriate remedy is available to the appellant to enforce the said order in accordance with law. However, no interference can be made with the impugned judgment and award. 6. Subject to what is observed above, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )