1 fa863.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.863/2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division Yavatmal,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1.
Anjali D/o Sharad Ballal
(After Marriage - Anjali W/o Uday Pande)
Aged - Major, Occu.- Cultivator,
R/o. C/o U.K. Pande Adv.
Vivekanand Society, Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work No.II, Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.898/2010
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
2 fa863.10
Bembla Project Division Yavatmal,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. Smt. Shewantabai Wd/o Baliram Kawalkar,
Aged - Major, Occu.- Cultivator,
R/o. Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.2, Yavatmal.
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.677/2011
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. Damodhar Ganpat Raut,
Aged - Major, Occu.- Agriculturist,
R/o. Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
3 fa863.10
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work No.II, Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.678/2011
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,ig
Bembla Project Division,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. Damodhar S/o Ganpat Raut,
Aged - Major, Occu.- Agriculturist,
R/o. Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.II, Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
4 fa863.10
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1005/2011
(Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Ganpat Kawalkar) deceased by L.R.'s
1. Smt. Anusaya w/o Narayan Kherde,
Aged about 60 yrs., Occu. Household work,
R/o Umarsara, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Smt. Baynabai wd/o Eknath Lokhande,
Aged about 68 yrs, Occu. Household work
Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
(Appellant No.1 and 2 through power of attorney
holder Pradeep Ekanath Lokhande
Age 52, R/o Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.) ... APPELLANTS
...Versus...
1. The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.II, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
5 fa863.10
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.326/2010
Trimbak s/o Ganpat Kawalkar,
Age 71 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal (appearing through power of
attorney Harirar Narayan Kawalkar) ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.II,
Bembla Project Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH CROSS APPEAL NO.622/2011
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. Trimbak Ganpat Kawalkar,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
6 fa863.10
Aged : Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Pahur, Taq. Babhulgaon,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.II, Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
ig AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.367/2010
Prashant s/o Baliram Kawalkar,
Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.II,
Bembla Project Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
7 fa863.10
WITH CROSS APPEAL NO.591/2011
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. Prashant Baliram Kawalkar,
Age Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
2.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work No.II, Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.527/2010
Trimbak s/o Ganpat Kawalkar,
Age 71 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
(Appearing through power of attorney
Harirar Narayan Kawalkar). ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
8 fa863.10
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works No.II,
Yavatmal.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Yavatmal.
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH CROSS APPEAL NO.627/2011
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project Division,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT
...Versus...
1. Trimbak Ganpat Kawalkar,
Age Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Work No.II, Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.B. Patil , Adv. for appellants ( In F.A. Nos.863/10, 898/10, 677/11, 678/11, Cross Appeal
Nos.622/11, 591/11 & 627/11)
Mr. A.B. Nakshane, Adv. for appellants. (in F.A. Nos.1005/11, 326/10, 367/10 and 527/10)
Mr. Yengal, Adgokar, Mr. Sonak and Mr. Bagde, AGPs for State. (in all matters)
Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respondent no.1 (in F.A. Nos.677/11 & 678/11)
Mr. AB. Nakshane, Adv. for respondent no.1 (in Cross Appeal Nos.622/11, 591/11 & 627/11)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
9 fa863.10
CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J.
DATED : 18.10.2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These nine appeals are arising out of the judgments and awards passed on the dates between 2/5/2009 to 23/2/2011 by the learned reference Court in various references sought by the land owners, whose lands situated at village Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal, were compulsorily acquired for the public purpose i.e. Bembla Irrigation Project vide notification dated 11/5/2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short "S.L.A.O.") declared the award on 23/4/2004. The necessary details of the lands acquired like area, gat number, name of owners, compensation granted by the S.L.A.O. and thereafter enhanced by the learned reference Court are reproduced below in a tabular form :
Date of Notification :- 11/05/2000 Name of Project :- Bembla Project, Village - Pahur, Dist.
Yavatmal.
Date of award by S.L.A.O. :- 23/4/2004.
Sr. Case Survey Total Area Name of Compensa LAC Date of Compensa
No No. No./ area acqu owner tion No. Decision tion by
Gat ired awarded Reference
No. by court
S.L.A.O.
1 863/10 808 0.81 0.81 Anjali d/o. 56,239/- 536/06 02/05/09 1,38,000/
Sharad P.H - P.H.
Ballal
Respdt.)
2 898/10 369, 1.18 1.18 Shewantabai 56,378/- 439/06 30/11/09 1,38,000/
398, 2.43 2.43 Baliram P.H. -P.H
441 2.97 2.97 Kawalkar 57,173/-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
10 fa863.10
(Respdt.) P.H.
57,069/-
P.H.
3 677/11 287 0.81 0.81 Damodhar 1500/- 337/06 14/11/09 1,39,000/
Ganpat Raut P.H., - P.H.
(Respdt.) 57,899/-
P.H
4 678/11 284 5.11 5.11 Damodhar 57,069/- 507/06 16/11/09 1,39,000/
Ganpat Raut P.H - P.H.
(Respdt.) 1500/- 69,500/-
P.H P.H.
5 1005/1 198, 4.95 4.95 Laxmibai 56,827/- 357/06 23/2/11 1,38,000/
1 201 5.72 4.72 Ganpat P.H, -P.H.
Kawalkar 57,899/-
thr. LR's P.H,
Appellant) 1500/-
P.H.
6 326/10 200,
148
1.62
9.41
ig 0.81 Trimbak
9.41 Ganpat
Kawalkar
1500/-
P.H.,
56,827/-
442/06 30/10/09 1,38,000/
- P.H.
with (Appellant) P.H,
cross Trimbak 57,207/-
appeal Ganpat P.H
622/11 Kawalkar
(Respdt.)
7 367/10 83, 2.48 2.48 Prashant 58,728/- 334/06 27/10/09 1,38,000/
197 & 5.34 5.34 Baliram P.H. -P.H, &
131 1.19 1.19 Kawalkar 57,276/- 69,000/-
with (Appellant) P.H P.H.
cross ---------------- 56,447/-
appeal Prashant P.H
591/11 Baliram 1500/-P.H.
Kawalkar For
(Respdt.) Potkharab
8 527/10 446 7.01 5.57 Trimbak 52,783/- 376/06 30/11/09 1,38,000/
with Ganpat P.H. -P.H.
cross Kawalkar
appeal (Appellant)
627/11 ----------------
Trimbak
Ganpat
Kawalkar
(Respdt.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::
11 fa863.10
2. The land owners relied upon the 6 sale instances of the adjoining villages. The learned reference Court declined to rely upon any of the sale instances on the ground that none of them is proximate from time angle and situation angle. The Court was of the view that evidence about the similarities of the land acquired and the lands covered under the sale instances was lacking. Since there was no other evidence except the sale instances, the learned reference Court arrived at the average price of Rs.1,82,278/- per hectare and deducted 20 to 25 % from the value arrived at. The deduction was on account of dissimilarities between the lands acquired and the lands covered under the sale deeds and then fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.1,38,000/- per hectare. Dissatisfied with the judgments and awards, all these appeals have been preferred.
3. Mr. Amol Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants - Acquiring Body, contended that the judgments and awards passed by the learned reference Court are not supported by the evidence on record. According to him, the onus to prove the fair market value of the lands acquired primarily lies upon the land owners who seek reference and same has not been discharged. The next point raised by him is that the learned reference Court went wrong in considering all the sale instances and then adopting averaging price method. He, therefore, submits that the learned reference Court in all these references was not justified in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 12 fa863.10 enhancing the amount of compensation to any extent.
4. Mr. Nakshane, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - claimants as well as cross appellants in cross appeal Nos.
622/2011, 591/2011 and 627/2011, supported the judgments and awards and further contended that the claimants have adduced the cogent and convincing evidence to justify the award of compensation at the rate of more than Rs.2 Lakh per hectare. According to him, where there are several examplars with reference to similar lands, highest of the examplars ought to have been considered as laid down in case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (registered), Faridkot and others V/s. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432.
5. Mr. Yengal, the learned AGP appearing for the State, supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are :
(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned reference Court at the rate of Rs.1,38,000/- per hectare is just and fair having regard to the material placed on record ?
(ii) Whether the cross appellants could establish that the compensation awarded by the learned reference Court at the rate of Rs.1,38,000/- per hectare was inadequate and they are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation, if yes at what rate ?
7. Before adverting to the evidence brought on record it is necessary to clarify the legal position, which is relevant and necessary for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 13 fa863.10 determination of the issues involved in these appeals. In Special Land Acquisition Officer V/s. Karigowda and others reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 the Supreme Court observed that no straitjacket formula can be applied to determine the value of acquired land. Courts have to exercise discretion in adopting any of the methods of larger acceptance like sale statistics method, capitalization method and agricultural yield basis method. When the Court considers to rely upon the sale statistic, it is permissible to consider the sale instance of the adjoining lands including land of the adjacent villages acquired for same purpose. When there is commonality of purpose and common development, compensation based on statistical data of adjacent village is proper. In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (registered), Faridkot and others V/s. State of Punjab and others (supra) the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for adopting the proper course when several sale instances are relied upon wherein it is observed that :
".....when there are several examplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that highest of the examplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition....."
8. The claimants relied upon the following sale instances :
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 14 fa863.10
Village Rate of land Area of land Date of sale deed Rate per hectare of
in Rs. land in Rs.
Kopra 1,50,000/- 1.21 H.R. 18/01/1994 1,23,967/-
Barad
Kolhi 1,90,000/- 1.55 H.R. 19/04/1994 1,22,580/-
Nagargaon 1,65,000/- 1.10 H.R. 16/3/2000 1,50,000/-
Thelegaon 99,000/- 1.21 H.R. 5/8/1994 81,818/-
Panas 1,00,000/- 0.99 H.R. 22/3/1996 1,01,000/-
Rustampur 3,00,000/- 1.34 H.R. 2/8/2001 2,23,880/-
9. The learned reference Court considered all these sale instances and arrived at the average price of Rs.1,82,278/- per hectare and then proceeded to deduct 20 to 25 % on account of minus factors like dissimilarities between the lands acquired and the lands covered under the sale instances and most of the sale instances being not proximate from time angle. It is relevant to reproduce the findings recorded by the learned reference Court (in L.A.C. No.536/2006).
".....However, considering various factors like distance of agricultural lands covered by sale transactions at Exh.32 to 38 from the acquired land, dissimilarities of these lands covered by Exh.32 to 38 in respect of nature, fertility, potential, location, etc. from the acquired land and the fact that most of these sale transactions are not proximate in time with the date of issue of notification u/s 4 of the Act in the present case which was published on 11.05.2000 abut 20 to 25 % deduction required to be made from average price of Rs.1,82,278/- P.H. Then it comes to Rs. 1,38,000/- per hectare in round figure. Hence, the petitioner entitle for enhance compensation for her 0.81 H.R. land @ Rs. 1,38,000/- per hectare. I, therefore, answer issue no.1 in the affirmative."
10. Having regard to the legal position explained at the outset, it is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 15 fa863.10 needless to say that the learned reference Court adopted an erroneous approach. In all the sale instances, the sale instance of village Koprabarad, Kolhi, Thelegaon, Panas are not proximate from time angle. The sale instance dated 2/8/2001 of village Rustampur is a post notification sale instance and cannot be considered. Other sale instance is dated 16/3/2000.
The land area 1 H 10 R out of total area 2 H 21 R was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- by Manohar Tarone to Sopan Bhendarkar.
The perusal of the sale deed (Exh.53 in LA.C. No.357/2006) shows that the land sold was a dry crop land without any facility for irrigation. Thus, the value fetched was Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. The map (Exh.57 in L.A.C.
No.357/2006) points out that in between Nagargaon and Pahur there is a small village Malapur. It has come in the evidence of Sharad (P.W.1) (Exh.26 in L.A.C. 536/2006) that the distance between village Pahur and Nagargaon is just 2 kilometers. In his cross examination, questions were put to him about the land revenue levied on the lands covered under the sale instance and the lands of village Pahur. However, it was not suggested as to what is the land revenue levied on the lands of village Nagargaon and the land revenue levied on the lands of village Pahur particularly, the acquired land.
It appears from the evidence that both these villages are having similar facilities, lands are similar and in a zone with same agroclimatic condition.
Further, nothing could be elicited to point out that the transaction is not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 16 fa863.10 bona fide. From the facts of the case there is nothing to doubt that this transaction was not genuine. Had it been so, the price could have been escalated to the highest possible extent and not restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-
per hectare. As has been observed by the learned reference Court even after considering all the sale instances the average price comes to Rs.1,82,278/-
per hectare whereas the sale instance reveals that the land fetched Rs.
1,50,000/- per hectare. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded ought to have been not less than Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.
11. In Special Land Acquisition Officer V/s. Karigowda and others (supra) the Supreme Court pointed out the responsibility of the State to pay just and fair compensation without delay when State is exercising power of compulsive acquisition. It was explained thus :
"Keeping in view the scheme of the Act, it will not be appropriate either to apply the rule of strict construction or too liberal construction to its provisions. The Act has a unique purpose to achieve i.e. fulfillment of the various purposes (projects) to serve the public interest at large, for which the land has been acquired under the provisions of this Act by payment of compensation. The power of compulsive acquisition has an inbuilt element of duty and responsibility upon the State to pay the compensation which is just, fair and without delay." (Emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court further observed that there is no straitjacket formula for determining value of acquired land. Courts have to exercise discretion in accordance with the scheme of the Act, however, deprivation of livelihood being one of the relevant factors can be a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 17 fa863.10 consideration for grant of higher compensation to ensure that injustice is not done.
12. By relying upon the sale instances the market value of the dry crop land per hectare comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. Now, the question that crops up is whether it would be just and fair to fix the same market value for the lands compulsorily acquired. In the present cases there are advantageous factors like village Pahur is comparatively bigger than the village Nagargaon. Evidence shows that it has a population of more than 5000 and has facilities like Gram Panchayat, Primary Health Center, bus station, high school, veterinary dispensary etc. Further, the map shows that it is abutting to Ner - Babhulgaon raod. Considering all these plus factors and also considering the fact that the sale deeds are generally under valued to save the stamp duty, so also considering the average value per hectare of Rs.1,82,000/-, reference of which is appearing in the judgments and awards impugned, I am of the view that it would be just and fair to fix the market value at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land.
13. In first appeal No.527/2010 with cross appeal No.627/2011 arising out of the judgment and award rendered in L.A.C. No.376/2006 it is contended that the land area 5.57 H.R. was irrigated. The learned reference Court in para 10 of its judgment dealt with this issue and relying upon the entries in the 7/12 extracts at Exhs.28 to 32 observed that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 18 fa863.10 crops grown in the acquired lands were of Kharip crops i.e. rain-fed crops.
It was further observed that there is no reliable evidence to hold that the claimant had laid pipeline in the land and was irrigating the crops and therefore, proceeded to award compensation at the rate of Rs.1,38,000/-
per hectare. Entries in the 7/12 extracts (Exhs.28 to 32 in L.A.C. No. 376/2006) point out that by obtaining the loan well was dug. No doubt, there is no mention of any pipeline. Counsel for the respondent/cross appellant relied upon the electricity consumption bills at Exhs.33 and 34.
These pertain to year 2004 and therefore, cannot be an evidence to prove that the land was irrigated. In case of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.
Rs. V./s The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon reported in AIR 2012 SC 481 it has been held that the crop pattern could not lead to an inference that land was not irrigated. There cannot be denial to the fact that cotton and chillies are the crops which are seasonally irrigated to get higher production. There is evidence of Vishnu Paradkar, who holds post graduate degree in agriculture and acted as a Valuer deposed that out of 5.57 H.R.
land acquired 2.57 H.R. land was irrigated. Therefore, he valued this portion of land at the rate of Rs.2,85,000/- per hectare and rest at the rate of Rs.1,90,000/- per hectare. He has been extensively cross examined. It could be elicited during his cross examination that the land area 2.57 H.R.
was seasonally irrigated. He further admits that rates of the land having ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 19 fa863.10 seasonal irrigation as compared to the lands having facilities of perennial irrigation are less. He had noticed the electric pump and pipeline. Exhibit 26 is the operative part of award passed by S.L.A.O. on 16/11/2005 which shows that in the lands acquired there were two wells and for that the S.L.A.O. awarded compensation of Rs.1,15,257-. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence of Vishnu Paradkar on the point that 2.57 H.R. land was seasonally irrigated. In that view of the matter, claimant in this reference will be entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs.2 Lakh per hectare for 2.57 H.R. land and for remaining 3 hectares at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare.
14. In the result;
First Appeal Nos.863/2010 (V.I.D.C. V/s. Anjali D/o Sharad Ballal and others), 898/2010 (V.I.D.C. V/s. Smt. Shewantabai Wd/o Baliram Kawalkar and others), 677/2011 (V.I.D.C. V/s. Damodhar Ganpat Raut and others) 678/2011 (V.I.D.C. V/s. Damodhar S/o Ganpat Raut and others) are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
First Appeal No.1005/2011 (Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Ganpat Kawalkar {dead} through L.R.'s V/s. the Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal and others) is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare with all other statutory benefits like solatium, additional component and interest ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 ::: 20 fa863.10 less the amount already granted by the learned reference Court. Rest of the claim is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
First Appeal No.326/2010 ( Trimbak s/o Ganpat Kawalkar V/s.
the Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal and others) is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare with all other statutory benefits like solatium, additional component and interest less the amount already granted by the learned reference Court. Rest of the claim is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Cross Appeal No.622/2011 (V.I.D.C. V/s.
Trimbak Ganpat Kawalkar and others) is dismissed with no order as to costs.
First Appeal No.367/2010 (Prashant s/o Baliram Kawalkar V/s. the Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal and others) is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare with all other statutory benefits like solatium, additional component and interest less the amount already granted by the learned reference Court. Rest of the claim is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Cross Appeal No. 591/2011 (V.I.D.C. V/s. Prashant Baliram Kawalkar and others) is dismissed with no order as to costs.
First Appeal No.527/2010 (Trimbak s/o Ganpat Kawalkar V/s.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::21 fa863.10 the Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal and others) is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2 Lakh per hectare for 2.57 H.R. land and for remaining 3 hectares at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per hectare with all other statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation, however, minus the amount already granted by the learned reference Court. Rest of the claim is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Cross Appeal No.627/2011 (V.I.D.C. V/s. Trimbak Ganpat Kawalkar and others) is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar. w
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:17:59 :::