1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.380 OF 1994 Begambee w/o Shaikh Miya, Age 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o Chowk Bazar, Aurangabad ... APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for appellant Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent ..... W I T H FIRST APPEAL NO.381 OF 1994 Shaikh Miya alias Khawaji s/o Shaikh Chote, Age 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o Chowk Bazar, Aurangabad ... APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ... RESPONDENT 2 ..... Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for appellant Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent ..... W I T H FIRST APPEAL NO.384 OF 1994 1. Begambee w/o Shaikh Miya, Age 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o Chowk Bazar, Aurangabad 2. Shaikh Jameel s/o Shaikh Miya, Age 25 years, Occ. Business, R/o as above. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for appellants Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent ..... CORAM: N.D. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 8th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. These three First Appeals are arising out of one and the 3 same judgment and award dated 16.1.1992, passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.56/1987, 32/1987 and 35/1987 respectively. The same is impugned in these appeals which involve common question of law and facts. All the appellants are represented by Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate and hence, the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard arguments of both the sides. 3. The appellants preferred these appeals for enhancement of compensation. The acquiring authority is the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, which was not the party before the Reference Court. Therefore, following two points are raised in these appeals. (1) Whether compensation in the impugned award passed by the Reference Court is reasonable and proper? (2) Whether acquiring authority – Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad is necessary party ? 4 4. Perused the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and also the original record which is made available at the time of hearing. With the assistance of both the parties, I have gone through the relevant evidence on the point of market value of the land and compensation prayed for. 5. Shri S.K. Kadam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent/ State submitted that the Reference Court has taken all evidence into consideration and pointed out that except oral testimony of the appellants (original claimants), there is nothing to support their claim or contention for enhanced compensation. Shri P.F. Patni, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any other material or evidence on record to substantiate the claim in appeals. Thus, the appellants’ claim is based on their oral testimony. Such demand for enhanced compensation cannot be considered in the absence of independent evidence. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is legal and proper and hence, calls for no interference. The same is maintained. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 5 6. During the course of arguments, Shri S.K. Kadam, learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that, in case no interference is ordered, then his objection as to whether acquiring body is necessary party in appeals or in earlier proceedings, for remand, shall have no bearing for disposal of appeals in case the impugned award is maintained. Since the respondent/State had already deposited the amount of compensation in Court and the appellants/ claimants have also received the same, there would be no question for remand and, therefore, any further direction for remand would not be necessary. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed and, therefore, point No.2 is answered accordingly. 7. Thus, the appeals have failed on merits. Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.)