(1) THE Tribunal of Appeal constituted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the Act") held that the appellants appeal under Section 74 of the Act was not maintainable and consequently it was dismissed. The writ petition filed in the High Court challenging the said order was also dismissed. (2) UNDISPUTABLY, the appellants plot was covered by the Act and the scheme framed thereunder for Pandharpur. The appellant was owner of certain lands/plots which were constituted into Final Plot No. 164 after a draft scheme was approved. But, however, the size of the final plot allotted to the appellant was reduced by an area of 872 square metres and the same was acquired under the scheme. In respect of this 872 square metres, the appellant was awarded a compensation by the arbitrator. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 74 of the Act. But, however, the Tribunal in view of clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act held that the appeal was not maintainable. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. (3) THE question that falls for our consideration relates to an interpretation of clause (;v) of sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act which reads as under: "72. (3) Every Arbitrator shall (iv) estimate the compensation payable for the loss of the area of the original plot in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 97 in respect of any original plot which is wholly acquired under the scheme." (emphasis supplied) (4) SECTION 74 deals with the appeal provision and it reads thus: "74. (1) Any decisions of the arbitrator under clauses (iv) to (xi) (both inclusive) and clauses (xiv), (xv) and (xvi) of sub-section (3) of Section 72 shall be forthwith communicated to the party concerned including the Planning Authority; and any party aggrieved by such decision may, within two months from the date of communication of the decision, apply to the arbitrator to make a reference to the Tribunal of Appeal for decision of the appeal." (5) THE reading of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that the appeal could be entertained by the Tribunal of Appeal only against the decision of the arbitrator under clauses (iv) to (xi) and not otherwise. Reverting back to clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 72, it gives a right to the claimant to file an appeal where his original plot is wholly acquired under the scheme. Admittedly, the appellants original plot was not wholly acquired under the scheme but a part of the said original plot was acquired. It is, therefore, clear that the appellants claim would not fall under clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act. If this be so, it is quite obvious that the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal of Appeal under Section 74 of the Act was not tenable. The High Court while construing the said provisions held that the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal of Appeal was not maintainable. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the legislature has permitted the appeals to be filed only in limited cases where the original plot is wholly acquired under the scheme. The High Court, in our opinion, has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the appeal of the appellant before the Tribunal of Appeal under Section 74 was not maintainable. (6) IT was then contended on behalf of the appellant that the award of the arbitrator in respect of compensation was too meagre and in fact the plots which were carved out from the acquired portion were sold to various persons for the amounts which came to Rs. 1,33,163.00. The acquiring authority, it was contended, should not be permitted to make profit out of the scheme. This submission again does not detain us for any longer because no material particulars are furnished before us. No such contention was also raised in the appeal memo before the Tribunal of Appeal. In the absence of such pleading, in our opinion, it would not be possible to accept this new contention at this stage. (7) IT was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the same scheme another plot was acquired for which dispute was raised as regards compensation in Special Civil Application No. 95 of 1997 filed in the Bombay High Court and it was allowed. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal of Appeal for disposal in accordance with law. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal of Appeal for disposal in accordance with law. He urged that if the Tribunal of Appeal enhances the compensation in respect of claimants in Special Civil Application No. 905 of 1997, the appellant would also be entitled to claim the enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This contention is again taken up first time in this Court by way of additional grounds in this appeal. We, however, do not express any opinion as to whether the appellant is entitled to invoke provisions of Section 28-A or not because that would be a separate proceeding in which the appellant may claim such benefit. If any such proceedings are taken up by the appellant under the said provision, the authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. (8) THE appeal has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed. (9) IN the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.