P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. - (1.) The appellant in both these appeals is City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited--a Government Company designated as Special Planning Authority/New wn Development Authority for the development of notified area known as New Nasik. The proceedings for acquisition of vast extent of land were initiated during the year 1982 in one case and in 1975 in another case under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional wn Planning Act, 1966 read with the Land Acquisition Act. The present appeals, which we are concerned with, relate award of compensation for portions of the said land belonging respondents. The compensation was determined by the Reference Court zone-wise. In Civil Appeal No. 2729/1999, the appeal filed by the State against the award of the Reference Court was dismissed upholding the determination of the market value by the Reference Court. At the same time, the High Court held that the claimants shall be entitled get the benefits envisaged by Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as added/amended by Central Act 68 or 1984. In Civil Appeal Nos. 2730-2731 of 1999, the appeal filed by the claimant against the order of the Reference Court was partly allowed by enhancing the compensation a certain extent. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed. There also, the benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 as amended were made available the claimants.
(2.) Strangely enough, the judgment of the High Court in each of these cases in the main appeals against the awards of the Reference Court have not been questioned at all before this Court. The orders questioned in this Court are those dismissing the appellants application for impleadment and review filed after the disposal of the appeals. The impugned order in civil Appeal Nos. 2730- 2731 of 1999 reads as follows: "Heard learned Counsel for the parties. These applications were filed in two groups of First Appeals. One group was disposed of on 19-20/4/93. The other was disposed of on 24- 27/1/97. The applicant is praying for impleadment and for review of those orders. It is not possible implead the applicant in these First Appeals which are already disposed of and consider granting of review. Civil application disposed of accordingly."
(3.) An identical order was passed on the same date, i.e., on 22.12.1998 in the other matter covered by civil Appeal No. 2729 of 1999.;