1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | FIRST APPEAL NO.188/2004 Rambhau Ramji (deceased) His L.Rs. Rajendra Rambhau Aute & Ors. ..Appellants Vs Santram S/o Natha Rakshe and Ors. .. Respondents .... Shri S.S.Choudhari,Adv.for appellants. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2009. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 19/1/1994 passed by learned II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in Land Acquisition Reference No. 4/1981 filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. By this judgment and order the learned Judge of the Reference Court held that the claimant i.e. the respondent Santram herein, is entitled to receive 60% of the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,900/- plus interest if any and 2 Shri Shamrao Gopalrao Bharde-the landlord is entitled to receive 40% of the amount of compensation. 2. The learned counsel Shri S.S.Choudhari appearing for the appellant submitted that the order passed by reference Court regarding apportionment of 60% amount of compensation of Rs.6,900/- to the non-applicant Santram on the basis that he was protected tenant, is not correct and the same is in ignorance of the judgment and order dated 23/6/1967 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1758/1964. According to the learned counsel, the status of the respondent Santram as a tenant was decided by this judgment dated 23/6/1967 and it was held that he was not the tenant in respect of lands which were acquired and hence the trial Court has committed an error in directing payment of 60% of amount of compensation to the respondent Santram. This is the only point urged in this appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that one Ramrao Bharde was the owner of survey no.2 village Saste Pimpalgaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist.Jalna. The appellant Rambhau Ramji and the respondent no.1 Santram claimed to 3 be the protected tenants in respect of survey no.2 which was acquired and in respect of which the compensation of Rs.6,900/- was determined. 4. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 23/6/1967 passed by Special Civil Application No.1758/1964 which was filed by the appellant no.1 Rambhau, challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities. The said judgment has been taken into consideration by the learned Judge of the reference Court and a finding is recorded that the application under Section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act 1950 filed before the Tahsildar by Santram was beyond the period of limitation and hence the same was not tenable. On going through the said judgment, I am also of the opinion that there was no adjudication made in the said proceedings throughout, to the effect that either the appellant Rambhau Ramji or the respondent no. 1 Santram Natha were the protected tenants in respect of the property which is acquired. 5. Thus, the said judgment dated 23/6/1967 is of no help to the appellant.The trial Court has also 4 recorded a finding in Special Civil Suit No.58/1972 that the respondent Santram Natha was held to be a tenant and there was no evidence placed on record of the trial Court to show that the appellant Rambhau was the protected tenant in respect of the land acquired. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any infirmity in such finding recorded by competent authority and accepted by trial Court. All these findings of facts are based upon the evidence available on record. There is no perversity or any illegality which has been brought to my notice. Hence the instant Appeal fails. The same is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/fa188-94