1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2882 OF 2009 Shri Ramdas Tukaram Kedar and another ).. Appellants Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Irrigation No.1 ) Nashik and others ).. Respondents Mr. P.N. Joshi for the Appellants. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. The application filed by the present Appellants under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be dismissed vide order dated 22nd December 2008 passed by the Special Land Acqusition Officer, Nashik. Correctness and legality of this order was questioned by the Appellants in Writ Petition No. 2882 of 2009 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1st September 2009. Operative part of the order reads as under :- 2 “4. At the outset, in my opinion, a claimant, such as the petitioner, who files application seeking reference under section 18 of the Act, chooses to seek enhancement in respect of a part of the acquired property, cannot maintain the application under section 28A in respect of the remaining property. Section 28A, in my opinion, is available only to the persons interested in all other lands covered by the Notification under section 4 sub-clause (1), and who have not made application to the Collector under section 18. The petitioners do not fall in that category. The petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, chose to seek enhancement only in respect of the part of property i.e. for 374 trees out of 674. It would not be possible to assume that the petitioners, through oversight, missed to seek enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of 300 trees. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and dismissed as such.” 2. Above decision is challenged on the ground that the Appellants had not filed any application under Section 18 for 300 trees claiming separate compensation and in fact had filed the claim application relating to compensation payable for the land and some of the trees. Thus, in the eyes of law, the Appellants did not file an application under Section 18 and, therefore, provisions of Section 28A would be attracted. We find this argument to be without any merit inasmuch as the application under Section 18 was admittedly filed. If the Appellants by omission or otherwise did not claim compensation for part of their trees, this cannot be equated to a case where the application under Section 18 was 3 not even instituted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Hansoli Devi, 2002 DGLS 744 where a Section 18 application was dismissed as being barred by time and the Court held that Section 28A was applicable in such cases. This judgment has no application to the facts of this case as admittedly the Appellants had filed an application under Section 18 which was determined in accordance with law. 3. We see no merit in the Appeal. Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.