Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Two points have been urged before us. The first argument is that the original trustees have been replaced by new trustees. In that case, the claim regarding compensation for house property cannot be pursued by the new trustees. The argument deserves to be stated to be rejected inasmuch as the house property, which is affected on account of acquisition was the property of the Trust. The fact that the trustees have changed does not mean that the right of the Trust to receive compensation for the house property is effaced. That right would enure in favour of the Trust. The compensation to be received by the new trustees would naturally be for and on behalf of the Trust. In the circumstances, there is no substance in this ground. 3. The second ground urged before us is that the compensation provided for the loss of structure as claimed by the claimants is excessive. In the context of this submission, it is further argued that as a matter of fact, the SLAO did not grant any compensation therefor for which reason, the reference Court ought not to have granted compensation. Insofar as this argument is concerned, the same does not commend to us at all. The fact that the SLAO did not grant any compensation towards loss of structure, does not preclude the claimants from pursuing compensation in that regard before the reference Court. Further, it is not in dispute that the claimants in their reference application specifically asked for compensation towards loss of house property, which was situated at Survey No. 77 /6A admeasuring 55’ x 32’. The total constructed area of the said house property according to the plaintiff was 1576.12 sq.ft. The claimants therefore, claimed conservative amount of Rs.125/- per sq.ft. as compensation, i.e. aggregate amount of Rs. 1,97,015/-. We are not concerned with any other claim put forth before the Reference Court except challenge to the compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court towards loss of house property in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-i.e. Rs.95.17/- per sq.ft. only. Insofar as this claim is concerned, no evidence was produced by the authority to belie the same. On the other hand, in the cross-examination, the claimants witness was confronted on behalf of the acquiring authority that the cost of house property would not exceed Rs.75/-per sq.ft. i.e. aggregate Rs.1,18,209/-. only. Insofar as this claim is concerned, no evidence was produced by the authority to belie the same. On the other hand, in the cross-examination, the claimants witness was confronted on behalf of the acquiring authority that the cost of house property would not exceed Rs.75/-per sq.ft. i.e. aggregate Rs.1,18,209/-. In other words, existence of the house property at Survey No.77 / 6A admeasuring 55’ x 32’ was not disputed. The only question raised before us is that the compensation amount awarded towards loss of the said house property of Rs.1,50,000/-(i.e. Rs.95.17/-per st.ft) is excessive. Going by the stand of the acquiring authority before the lower Court, the claimants may at best be entitled to the compensation amount at the rate of Rs.75/-per sqr.ft. i.e. aggregate Rs.1,18,209/-. Even if the contention of the acquiring authority were to be accepted as it is, the advantage derived by the claimants on account of additional compensation is only of Rs.31,791/-. The same is palpably insignificant advantage. We are intrigued that the State has decided to challenge such insignificant benefit given to the claimants and moreso when its own stand before the lower Court would in any case deserved grant of Rs.1,18,209/-towards this head of compensation. 4. To get over this position, the argument is that on the said additional amount of Rs.31,791/-, the claimants would become entitled to solatium and interest for which reason, the total liability of the State would 4 45 fa.1648.09 anr be substantial. This argument once again deserves to be stated to be rejected with contempt it deserves. We are certain that the State must have ended up in spending much more amount in pursuing this untenable legal action also paying of statutory interest on the entire compensation amount for all this period in the garb that the Reference order is under challenge. In any case, from the material on record, were are in agreement with the opinion reached by the Reference Court that for the structure admeasuring around 1576.12 sq.ft. compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-would be reasonable and fair market price thereof. No interference with regard to the said finding is warranted. 5. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal with costs to be paid to the Respondent quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 6. compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-would be reasonable and fair market price thereof. No interference with regard to the said finding is warranted. 5. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal with costs to be paid to the Respondent quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 6. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra and the Secretary Law and Judiciary Department to identify the officer(s) responsible for filing of such untenable appeals in the High Court. Besides, they shall also examine as to whether nonpayment of compensation amount immediately after passing of the award on 19th September, 2006, the liability of the State towards statutory interest for such lapse on the entire compensation amount should be recovered from the officials, who are responsible for not paying that amount within the statutory time and due to recommendation of filing of present appeal as the case may be keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in the case of Krishnarao s/o Damodar Joshi and ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. In Writ Petition No. 681 of 1994 reported in 2010 (4) MLJ 322. 7. In view of this order, civil application is dismissed.