JUDGMENT This first appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and is directed against an award dated 23rd November, 1987, passed by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, First Court, Alipore, in L.R.A Case No. 384 of 1985 thereby enhancing the amount of compensation by re-assessing the market value of the acquired lands-both "bil" and "bundh" to at Rs. 7,000/- per cottah. The said Court further directed that the referring claimants would also get solatium at the rate of 30% on the entire market value and recurring compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the period November 16, 1968 till 7th March, 1982. 2. Being dissatisfied, the State of West Bengal has come up with the present appeal. 3. Mr. Mahato, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset submits before us that he does not press the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal as regards enhancement of valuation but wants to restrict his submission to a different question. 4. According to Mr. Mahato, the land acquired by the Notification had already vested in the State, and, therefore, the referring claimants were not entitled to get any amount of compensation whatsoever. In support of such new plea, Mr. Mahato filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for taking into consideration some additional documents h support of his contention that the property had vested in the State. 5. Such application was opposed by the respondents/Referring claimants, and Mr. Das, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mahato. According to Mr. Das, in an appeal preferred against an award enhancing the amount of compensation on a reference made by his clients to whom the Collector proposed compensation, the State has no right to contend at this stage that the property did not belong to the Referring claimants. Such contention, according to Mr. Das, is beyond the scope of Reference under Section 18 of the Act. 6. Moreover, Mr. Such contention, according to Mr. Das, is beyond the scope of Reference under Section 18 of the Act. 6. Moreover, Mr. Das by drawing our attention to the award of the compensation passed by the, Collector itself at page 5 of the paper book points out that the Collector himself has mentioned in the award that title of the Referring claimants had already been declared as per judgment in Title Suit No. 33 of 1968 and C.O. No. 8786 (W) of 1981. Mr. Das, therefore, submits that even on merit, such plea is not tenable having been already decided by a competent Civil Court where the State of West Bengal was a party; but the State had not preferred any appeal against such decree. 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether in an appeal preferred against the award enhancing the amount of compensation, the State can take a new plea that the Referring claimants, whom the State itself accepted as owner, had no title to the property. 8. In our view, such point has already been answered by the Apex Court in the case of U.P State Industrial Development Corporation v. Rishabh Ispat Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2007 (2) SCC page 248. In the said decision, a similar point arose before the Apex Court and at Paragraph-10 of the judgment, the said Court held that the plea taken by the State disputing the title of the person to whom award had already been given could not be raised in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 9. Although Mr. Mahato tried to convince us that such plea is permissible by referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Makhanlal & Ors. v. Secretary of State, reported in AIR 1934 Allahabad, page 260, we are not at all convinced by such submission. In that case, the State, at the initial stage of acquisition, declared that the property belonged to the State itself and such declaration was challenged. In tile case before us; the State while declaring compensation had accepted the Referring claimants as the owner of the property after suffering a decree in a civil suit and the reference was made by those persons claiming enhanced amount as compensation, and such application having been allowed, this appeal has been preferred. In tile case before us; the State while declaring compensation had accepted the Referring claimants as the owner of the property after suffering a decree in a civil suit and the reference was made by those persons claiming enhanced amount as compensation, and such application having been allowed, this appeal has been preferred. Therefore, in this proceeding, there is no scope of adjudicating the question whether the respondents had title to the property. 10. The only point taken by Mr. Mahato having failed, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will however, be no order as to costs. 11. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. 12. In view of our aforesaid findings, we dismiss the application under Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the State as, in our view, those documents are not necessary for adjudication of the dispute involved in this appeal. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties within a week. Bhattacharya, J. Banerjee, J.