-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.778 OF 1994 IN L.A.R . NO.81 OF 1988 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3118 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra ).. Appellant Versus Smt.Yeribai Kamlya Mhatre and others ).. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NOS.779/1994, 780/1994, 781/1994, 782/1994, 782/1994, 783/1994, 784/1994 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.5913/1995 AND 1547/1995 Mr. K.K. Tated, Additional Governmet Pleader, for the Appellants in F.A.Nos.778/94, 779/94, 780/94, 781/94 & C.A.No.3118/96. Smt. G.P. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Appellants in F.A.Nos.782/94, 783/94, 784/94 & C.A.No.1547/95. Mr. D.K. Ghaisas for the Respondents. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M . KANADE, J. DATE: APRIL 23, 2008. P.C. The present bunch of seven Appeals is directed against the judgment and order of the Land Referece Court dated 30th March 1993. -2- All the Appeals have been preferred by the State. Suffice it to note that by issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) issued on 4th February 1970, the land were sought to be acquired for a public purpose under the New Bombay Project. Upon acquisition of the land, the Claimants filed their claims before the Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer who vide Award dated 21st May 1986 awarded different compensation to the Claimants varying between Rs.1.5 to 4.20 per sq.mtrs. Dissatisfied from the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, the Claimants filed References under Section 18 of the Act wherein the compensation was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.10 to Rs.12 per sq. mtrs. depending upon the nature of the land. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the State has preferred the present Appeals. 2. At the very outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have brought to the notice of the Court that against the same Notification and Awards relating to the acquisition of the lands from the same village, different Appeals were preferred against the orders of the Land Reference Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court in -3- First Appeal No.812 of 1993 decided on 17th September 2007 dismissed the said Appeals and held on merits that objections taken to the References were without merit and maintained the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. 3. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sadashiv Ganpat Avhad, First Appeal No.251 of 1996, the learned Counsel appearing for the State argued that some of the present Appeals should be accepted as the claim petitions filed under Section 18 by the Claimants were beyond time. According to him, this being a question of law, it should be permitted to be taken in Appeal for the first time and decided. In view of the judgment of this Court, which is binding on this Bench, it is obvious that the Appellant- Applicant is required to take up such plea by seeking amendment to the Memorandum of Appeal and even make submissions as to whether to lead evidence in support of the plea. Despite pendency of these Appeals right from the year 1994, no such steps had been admittedly taken by the State. As such, in the light of the very judgment relied on by the State, we cannot accept his contention and reject the same. -4- 4. For the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Rama Kalya Patil (supra), we have no reason to differ with the view taken therein and particularly the fact that the said judgment of this Court has attained finality as it admittedly has not been assailed by the State before the Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the Appeals. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Appeals, all the Civil Applications are also accordingly disposed of having become infructuous. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.