ssm sm sm 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. 2733 OF APPEAL NO. 2733 OF APPEAL NO. 2733 OF 2007 2007 2007 The Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-cum- Custodian of Evacuee Properties Maharashtra State & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Anant Kalya Patil & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.S.P.Manchekar,A.G.P.for the Appellants. Mr.Sachin Pande i/by Mr. Rajiv Patil for Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/5 and 2, 3/1 to 3/2 and 4. Mr.Vipul shukla for Respondent No.5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP : ANOOP : ANOOP V.MOHTA,J. V.MOHTA,J. V.MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 10th April, 2008 : 10th April, 2008 : 10th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the Judgment of this Court in First Appeal (Stamp) No.29653 of 1992 dated 12th March, 2008 (The (The (The Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-Cum-Custodian Properties-Cum-Custodian Properties-Cum-Custodian of Evacuee Properties, Bombay of Evacuee Properties, Bombay of Evacuee Properties, Bombay & Ors. Vs. Dhanaji Hasuram Patil & Ors.) Ors. Vs. Dhanaji Hasuram Patil & Ors.) Ors. Vs. Dhanaji Hasuram Patil & Ors.) it is observed that:- "2. Perusal of the Judgment shows that Reference under Section 30 of the said Act was required to be made as there was a dispute between the 2nd respondent on one hand and 1st respondent on the other ( 2 ) hand as regards apportionment of compensation. The 1st respondent claimed on the basis of alleged tenancy rights and the 2nd respondent claimed compensation in his capacity as the allottee. By the impugned Judgment and Award, it is held that the 2nd respondent is entitled to receive the entire compensation. Considering the nature of the impugned Judgment and Award, it is obvious that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to be the persons aggrieved by the Award. The 3rd appellant is the Special Land Acquisition Officer who had referred the matter to the Court for resolving the dispute as regards apportionment. 3. Hence, the Appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the present appellants and only on this ground the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs." 2. In view of this, the present Appeal is also dismissed, as not maintainable. ( 3 ) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)