ash 1 fa-1096.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1096 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra. -- Appellant. Vs Pandharinath Kisan Avhad. .. Respondent -- Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard the learned AGP appearing for the Appellant-State. By the impugned judgment and order, an Application for review filed by the Respondent has been allowed and therefore, this Appeal has been preferred under Rule 7 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The Respondent was the claimant in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 31st July, 1980 and the Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 31st March, 1981. The Reference was decided on 25th January, 1983 by the Reference Court by enhancing ash 2 fa-1096.92 the market value. 3. The Review Application was filed on 30th January, 1985 on the basis of the amendment to the said Act made by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 which came into force on 24th September, 1984. The Review Application was made for grant of statutory benefits under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act as amended on 24th September, 1984. By the impugned judgment and order, the said Application has been allowed. The Reference Court has granted statutory benefits under sections 23(2) and 28 of the said Act as amended on 24th September, 1984. 4. The submission of the learned AGP is that though in first paragraph of the impugned order, the learned Judge has made a reference to Section 152 of the said Code, what was filed by the Respondent was a review petition. His submission is that as the reference was decided prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act, there was no ground for review. None appears for the Respondent. 5. Perusal of the Application on which the impugned order has been passed shows that the prayer was specifically made for review of the Judgment and award in the Reference under Section 18 ash 3 fa-1096.92 of the said Act which was decided on 25th January, 1983. The review was sought on the basis of the amendment to the said Act which came into force on 24th September, 1984. On plain reading of the review application, there was no error apparent on the face of the record as the reference was decided prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act. Hence, the remedy under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the said Code was not available to the Respondent. In any event, the power under Section 152 of the said Code could not have been exercised as there was no accidental error or mistake in the judgment and award in the reference under Section 18. There is no finding recorded by the Reference Court that there was a ground for review made out within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Order XLVII of the said Code. 6. Hence the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and the same will have to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following order : ORDER : (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 30th September, 1991 is quashed and set aside and the Review Application No.358 of 1985 stands dismissed. ash 4 fa-1096.92 (b) The Appeal is allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs. (c) Civil Application No.478 of 1993 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )