1 fa982 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.982 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. 1 Bhargav Shivram Indulkar 2 Shankar Shivram Indulkar 3 Vinayak Shivram Indulkar 4 Dayawanti Vasant Jadhao 5 Sulochana Tukaram Sankpal 6 Sunanda Dashrath Kadam 7 Ganesh Anant Ganu 8 Mohammed Kadir Kumandan (dismissed) 9 Yusuf Kadir Kumandan (deleted) 10 Abbas Kadir Kumandan (dismissed) 11 Husen Kadir Kumandan (Deleted) 12 Maryam Kadir Kumandan (Dismissed) 13 Maryam Baba Dawe (Abated) 14 Fathima Adam Bhore (Dismissed)...Respondents Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the applicant Mr.S.A.Mudbidri for the respondent nos.1 to 6 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 24,2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard learned A.G.P for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6. 2 The appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 21st September 1992 passed by the Civil Court in a reference which was made on the basis of an application seeking reference under both the sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The land subject matter of acquisition is being survey no. 128/3 at Village Washi, Taluka Sangameshwar, District Ratnagiri. It appears that an Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the said Act by which the compensation was made payable to 2 fa982 the respondent no.7 herein who was opponent no.1 to the reference. 3 By the impugned Judgment and Award, the reference Court held that the respondent no.7 was not entitled to receive any compensation. The Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land will have to be determined at the rate of Rs.800/- per are. The Reference Court held that 6th opponent to the reference (12th respondent herein) was entitled to undivided share to the extent of 25% of the total market value. Accordingly, by the impugned Award, the reference Court granted enhancement in the market value to the respondent nos.1 to 6 and also held that the landlords will be entitled to 20% of the compensation. So in the enhanced amount, 20% share is payable to the landlords. The Reference Court granted share to the 12 th respondent. 4 By order dated 28 th December 2007, the Appeal has been dismissed as against the 12th respondent. Thus, the impugned Award has attained finality as far as 12 th respondent is concerned. Even if the appellant succeeds in the appeal and the market value granted by the reference Court is shown to be excessive, the said market value has become final as far as 12th respondent is concerned. Therefore, a Judgment and Award which will be inconsistent with the Award which stands confirmed as far as 12 th respondent is concerned, cannot be passed. Hence, the appeal cannot be entertained on the ground that the Award has become final as far as one of the respondents is concerned. 5 Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE