IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2008 IN L.A.R.NO.11 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Versus Kalya Kanya Kakade (since deceased through the legal heirs) 1.Pandharinath Kaluram Kakade & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.B.H.Mehta, A.G.P. for Appellant. Mr.Sachin Punde for Respondents. ...... CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M.KANADE, J. V.M.KANADE, J. V.M.KANADE, J. DATED: JUNE 12, 2008. DATED: JUNE 12, 2008. DATED: JUNE 12, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The present First Appeal is directed against the Award and Judgment dated 4th November 2003 passed by the Single Judge, Senior Division, Panvel in Land Acquisition Reference No.11/1997. 2. After acquisition of the land, the Collector had made an award, awarding compensation varying from Rs.2.40 ps. to Rs.5.75 ps. per : 2 : square meter for acquisition of their lands in Village Panvel. The Claimants did not file References under Section 18 of the Act but after decision of First Appeal No.209/1984 titled as Shantadevi Hariram Ruparel vs.The Special Land Acquisition Officer, which was decided by the Court on 7th October 1987 giving compensation at the rate of Rs.18 per square metre with other statutory benefits. That Judgment obviously related to the acquisition of the land from Village Panvel under the same Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3rd February 1970. When the parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence, the Claimants also filed copies of other Judgments relating to the same land and same acquisition including Judgement of this Court in First Appeal No.875/1985 (Exhibit 38). After considering the evidence on record and mainly relying upon Exhibit 38, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.22 per square meter to the Claimants before that Court. The State felt aggrieved by the said Judgment and has filed the present Appeal against the Award dated 4th November 2003 passed by the Court in : 3 : exercise of its determinate powers under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The only contention raised before us is that the learned Court could not have relied upon Appeal No.875/1985 while granting compensation as the Claimants in their Petition under Section 28A had relied upon the Judgment of the Court in First Appeal No.209/1984. This argument is without any substance and merit. The Claimants had claimed compensation in the Petition under Section 28A at the rate of Rs.30 per square meter and during the course of the trial of the said Petition had led evidence in accordance with law including proving Exhibit 38 which has rightly been relied upon by the Court. 4. We find no merit in the Appeal. The same is dismissed giving no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE : 4 : V.M.KANADE, J.