1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1512 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & Another ..Appellants. Versus Santosh Hanamant Garad & Another ..Respondents. Mrs.Geeta P. Mulekar, AGP for the appellants. None for the respondent. Coram : J.P. Devadhar, J. DATE : 23nd March 2010. P.C. : 1. This Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 10th April 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi, District Solapur in L.A.R. No.647 of 2002 whereby the compensation payable in respect of the land under acquisition have been enhanced by Rs.19,895/­ together with other statutory benefits. 2. In the present case, the lands in question ad­measuring 70 R Bagayat land out of Gat No.54 were sought to be acquired by the State 2 Government for the purpose of Medium Project, Pimpalgaon Dhale, Taluka Barshi. Accordingly, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the above land of the respondents was issued on 23rd October 1997. The notice of Award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act determining the amount payable on acquisition of the land was served on the respondents on 22nd November 2000. On a Reference Application filed by the respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi by the impugned judgment and Award dated 10th April 2006 held that the respondents are entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.19,895/­ towards the land together with the other statutory benefits as permissible under the Act. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present Appeal is filed by the State Government. 3. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader for the Appellants. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the enhancement of compensation is based on the decision of the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.666 of 2002 dated 29th July 2005. It is not in dispute that the lands in question in L.A.R. No.666 of 2002 and the lands in question in the present Appeal are in the same vicinity. It is an admitted fact that the lands in question in L.A.R. No.666 of 2002 were also acquired for the same project. There is nothing on record to show that the Revenue has filed any appeal against the decision in L.A.R. No.666 of 2002 dated 29th July 2005. In these circumstances, in my view, the decision of the Reference Court in 3 granting enhanced compensation cannot be faulted. 4. Hence Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. If the State Government has already deposited the amount of enhanced compensation in this Court, the respondents will be at liberty to withdraw the same. (J.P. Devadhar, J.)