: 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 NO.502 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2008 Vedprakash Bhagatram Swami & Ors. ...Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Pramod N. Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellants. Ms.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. This is an Appeal preferred by the original claimants for challenging a Judgment and Award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Advocate for the appellants fairly pointed out that by a common Judgment and Order passed by this Court dated 31st January, 2008 in a group of large number of First Appeals, First Appeal No.290 of 1997 preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the impugned Judgment and Award has been allowed on the ground that the Reference made at the instance of the appellants was barred by limitation. The learned : 2 : Advocate for the appellants pointed out that the appellants are adopting appropriate remedy against the decision in the Appeal preferred by the respondents. He also pointed out that the Division Bench while allowing the Appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra has kept open the remedy of the appellants of taking recourse to Section 28-A of the said Act of 1894. 3. The effect of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench is that the impugned Judgment and Award stands set aside and the References made at the instance of the appellants stand dismissed. In view of the said decision of the Division Bench, this Appeal does not survive as the impugned Award already stands set aside. 4. Accordingly, Appeal does not survive and the same is disposed of. 5. It is obvious that this order will not prevent the appellants from challenging the Judgment in the Appeal preferred by the respondent-State of Maharashtra. This order will not preclude the appellants from taking recourse to remedy under Section 28-A of the said Act of 1894. : 3 : [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]