( 1 ) 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 APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO. 346 OF 1990 FIRST APPEAL NO. 346 OF 1990 FIRST APPEAL NO. 346 OF 1990 The State of Maharashtra (Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel) ..Appellant V/s. Shri Baban Shimgya Mhatre ..Respondent ...... Smt.G.P. Mulekar, AGP for the appellants-State Mr. N.J. Patil for the respondent ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 Judgment : Judgment : Judgment : 1. The respondent Baban lost his two pieces of lands bearing Survey No.14 Hissa 3+5 and Survey No.15 Hissa 2+3 situate in village Dapoli, District Raigad in the land acquisition proceedings and the Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per Acre. The date of the award was 27th June, 1986 and possession was taken on 23rd ( 2 ) July, 1986. The respondent being aggrieved by the acquisition of the land filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the "said Act") in the District Court. The said reference came before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alibag, District Raigad and the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division vide judgment and decree dated 11th April, 1989 decided the said reference and and directed that a sum of Rs.73,155.28/- should be paid by way of a principal amount and interest should be paid more particularly set out in the order dated 11th April, 1989. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 11th April, 1989, the State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal. 2. As the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant State submitted that on account of judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in group of matters. First appeal No.462 of 1990 dated 18th July, 2001 compensation has been fixed @Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. for very village Dapoli, District Raigad. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent pointed out that if Rs.10/- has been fixed as an amount payable per sq.mtr. in regard to the land situate in village Dapoli, District Raigad then the ( 3 ) amount of Rs.5/- per sq.mtr. by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alibag, District Raigad cannot be faulted upon and once that amount is considered as properly granted further calculations arrived at also cannot be challenged as there is no specific challenge to the further calculations so arrived at. 4. If the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the rate payable at Rs.10/- sq.mtr. in regard to the land situate in village Dapoli, District Raigad grant of Rs.5/- per sq.mtr. will have to be termed as something which cannot be further gone into and challenge to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division cannot be accepted as no specific challenge is put up to manner of calculation. 5. The only point which the learned advocate for the appellant could raise in a situation like this was as regards the institution of the reference before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division beyond the period of limitation. She is submitted that notice under Section 12(2) of the said act was served upon the respondent on 23rd July, 1986 and the reference was filed on 30th May, 1987. According to her, the reference ought to have been filed within 42 days from the date of the service of the notice or within six months from the date of the award. She submitted that ( 4 ) the reference instituted on 30th May, 1987 would be beyond the period of limitation and as such the reference ought to have been dismissed. In reply to this argument, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that by now the law is well settled that if a point as regards the reference being beyond the period of limitation is not raised before the Court deciding the reference, it should not have been raised before this Court while agitating the ground in the first appeal. It must be mentioned that the first appeal came be to filed in the year 1990 and till today the appellants have not chosen to incorporate the ground of delay in the appeal memo and it was not raised before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division also. If this is the position, on factual aspects, in my view it would not be proper now to go into the question as to whether the institution of the reference was beyond a period of limitation. In view of the above, this appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 5 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)