-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.599 OF 1988 APPEAL NO.599 OF 1988 APPEAL NO.599 OF 1988 The State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Alibag,District Raigad ...Appellant Vs. Laxman Hari More ...Respondent Mr.K.K.Tated,A.G.P. for the Appellant None for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: APRIL 7,2006. APRIL 7,2006. APRIL 7,2006. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the Appellant-State Government. None appears for the Respondent. The Appellants have taken exception to the Judgment and Award dated 30th September 1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Raigad at Alibag. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Trial Judge has partly allowed a reference made at the instance of the Respondent under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. The learned A.G.P. in support of the Appeal submitted that admittedly the Respondent-original claimant was served with the notice under section 9(3)(4) of the said Act and though a reply was submitted by the Respondent, no specific -2- claim was made by the Respondent. He submitted that as the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the said Act has been made on 29th January 1982, the provisions of unamended section 25 of the said Act will apply. He submitted that as the Respondent had not claimed any amount after the receipt of the notice under section 9(3)(4) of the said Act, the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to grant more than what was offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside only on this ground. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned A.G.P. It will be necessary to refer to the cross examination of the witness No.2 of Respondent-Claimant. In paragraph 8 of the cross examination he has stated thus : "8. Now I am shown the reply to the notice served under section 9(3)(4) of the Act. It bears the signature of my uncle. The reply is in my hand writing. It is the reply of the notice dated 6-11-1976. It is true that we have not specifically given the amount of claim in our reply to the notice issued under section 9(3)(4) of the Act. Now I am shown the office copy of the notice under section 9(3)(4). It shows the acknowledgment bearing the signature of my -3- uncle having received the notice. I am producing the said office copy of the notice...." 4. The submissions which are made by Shri Tated, learned A.G.P. appear to have been specifically made before the learned Trial Judge. The said submission has been overlooked by observing that the evidence of the claimant shows that he has raised an objection after receipt of the notice under section 9(3)(4) of the said Act. The learned Judge held that the claimant can raise oral objection. 5. Whether the oral objection can be raised or not is totally a different matter. However, perusal of the examination-in-chief of the Respondent-claimant does not disclose that any such case of making an oral claim was made out by the Respondent on oath. 6. The law on this point appears to be very clear. The amendment made to section 25 of the said Act by Act No.68 of 1984 is prospective operative as section 25 has been held to be a substantive provision as distinguished from a procedural provision. The said Act No.68 of 1984 came into force from 24th September 1984. Thus, when the Award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was made, amended section 25 of the said Act was not on the statute book. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court (R.M.S.Khandeparkar and -4- V.M.Kanade,JJ.) in First Appeal No.430 of 1983 (State of Maharashtra Vs.Dhanaji Kamalu Joshi) will squarely apply to the present case. It is obvious that inspite of service of notice under section 9(3)(4) of the said Act, no specific claim was made by the Respondent-claimant. As the case will be governed by unamended section 25 of the said Act, the Reference Court could not have granted the compensation over and above the compensation which was offered by the Special Land Acquisition officer. 7. In the present case the Reference Court has enhanced the market value fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In view of the embargo of section 25 of the said Act, enhancement could not have been granted. Hence, the impugned Judgment and Award will have to be set aside. 8. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside. ii) L.A.R.No.82 of 1982 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.