: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.29667 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.29667 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.29667 OF 1992 The Settlement Commissioner for . Compensation Pool Properties-Cum- . Custodian of Evacuee Properties, . New Bombay and Ors. ...Appellants V/s. Janabai Maruti Mhatre & Ors. ...Respondents Ms.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the Appellants. Mr.I.S. Khemani, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned AGP for the appellant. The appellant is the Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-Cum-Custodian of Evacuee Properties of Maharashtra State. The challenge in the Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 30th March, 1991 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Alibag in a Reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made at the instance of the 3rd appellant-the Special Land Acquisition Officer. : 2 : 2. Perusal of the Judgment shows that Reference under Section 30 of the said Act was required to be made as there was a dispute between the 3rd respondent on one hand and 1st and 2nd respondents on the other hand as regards apportionment of compensation. The 1st and 2nd respondents claimed compensation on the basis of alleged tenancy rights and the 3rd respondent claimed compensation in his capacity as the allottee. By the impugned Judgment and Award, it is held that the 3rd respondent is entitled to receive the entire compensation. Considering the nature of the impugned Judgment and Award, it is obvious that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 cannot be said to be the persons aggrieved by the Award. The 3rd appellant is the Special Land Acquisition Officer who had referred the matter to the Court for resolving the dispute as regards apportionment. 3. Hence, the Appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the present appellants and only on this ground the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]