{1}
fa123303.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT Aurangabad
(1) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1233 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Sandu Bhagaji Kapse
age 70 years, occ. agril.
2. Kashinath Bhagaji Kapse
age major, occ. agri
Both r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(2) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1234 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Aba Mhatarji Kapse (Dead)
through LRs
1. Dagdu Aba Kapse
age 42 years.
2. Rangnath Aba Kapse
age 39 years
3. Machindra Aba Kapse
age 35 years
4 Dropadabai Kakarao Mankape
age 35 years
5 Asrabai Aba Kapse
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{2}
fa123303.odt
age 65 years
All r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(3) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1236 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Maruti Bala Kapse
age 55 years,
occ. agri.
2. Sarjerao Bala Kapse
age 60 years
occ. agri.,
Both r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(4) FIRST APPEAL NO.1238 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Manikrao Tukaram Kapse
Age 65 years, occ. agril
r/o Viramgaon,Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(5) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2003
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{3}
fa123303.odt
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Maruti Kamlaji Kapse
age 70 years, occ. agril
2. Bhausaheb Maruti Kapse
age 35 years, occ. agril
Both r/o Viramgaon,Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(6) FIRST APPEAL NO.1241 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Girdharsing Bapusing
age major, occ. agril
2. Mohansing Bapusing
age major, occ. agril
3. Vithalsing Bapusing
age major, occ. agril
All r/o Pal,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(7) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1242 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{4}
fa123303.odt
Versus
Bhika Haibati Danke
age 45 years, occ. agril.
r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist.Aurangabad. Respondent
WITH
(8) FIRST APPEAL NO.1245 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Bhaulal Bandu Dhanwat
age 65 years, occ. agril
r/o Leha, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondent
WITH
(9) FIRST APPEAL NO.1246 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Sow.Girjabai Baburao Kapse,
age: 47 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondent
WITH
(10) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1247 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{5}
fa123303.odt
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Bajirao Waluba Kapse
age 30 years, occ agril.
2. Laxman Waluba Kapse
age 25 years, occ.agril
Both r/oViramgaon, Tq.Sillod
Dist.Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(11) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1248 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Bhagushing Chotiramsing Rajput
age major, occ. agril
2. Babusing Chotiramsing Rajput
age 45 years, occ. agril
Both r/o Pal, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(12) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1250 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Kisan Gajaba Kapse
(deceased through LRs)
1. Eknath Kisan Kapse
age 50 years.
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{6}
fa123303.odt
2. Narayan Kisan Kapse
age 35 years
Both r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(13) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Kisansing Sandusing Rajput
age major, occl agril
2. Jagansing Sandusing Rajput
age major, occ. agril
3. Shantabai Sandusing Rajput
age major, occ. agril
All r/o Pal, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(14) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Sandu Punjaji Gaikwad
age 50 years, occ. agril
r/o Viramgaon, TQ. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(15) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1253 OF 2003
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{7}
fa123303.odt
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Dhausing Harising Rajput
age 70 years, occ. agril
r/o Pal, Tq & Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(16) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Thakusing Bannusing Rajput
age 65 years, occ. agril
r/o Pal, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(17) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1257 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Gangaram Gunsing
age major, occ. agril
r/o Pal, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(18) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{8}
fa123303.odt
Versus
1. Dhupa Changunan Kapse
age 40 years, occ. agril
2. Sandu Changuna Kapse
age 45 years, occ. agril
Both r/o Viramgaon, Tq Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(19) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1259 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Dattatraya Saluba Gaikwad
2. Annasaheb Saluba Gaikwad
Both major, occ. agril
r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod,
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(20) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1260 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Namdo Raibhan Karpe
age 58 years, occ. agril
r/o Viramgon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{9}
fa123303.odt
WITH
(21) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1261 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Shankarsing Chagansing
2. Bhikansing Chagansing
both major, occ. agril
r/o pal, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(22) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1262 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
Kasabai Shivram Rajput
age major, occ. agril
r/o Pal, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(23) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Narayan Maruti Danke
age 65 years,
2. Lilabai Kachru Danke
age 50 years,
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{10}
fa123303.odt
3. Ramdas Maruti Danke
age 40 years
4. Popat Maruti Danke
age 35 years
5. Ramesh Maruti Danke
age 32 years
All r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(24) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Subhashsing Shamsing Thakur
age major, occ. agril
2. Thansing Harising Thakur
age major, occ. agril
Both r/o Pal, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
WITH
(25) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Sandu Bhagaji Kapse
age 70 years,
2. Bandu Bhagaji Kapse
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{11}
fa123303.odt
age major
3. Kashinath Bhagaji Kapse
age major
4. Girjabai Bhagaji Kapse
age major
All r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(26) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1266 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Sarjerao Sitaram Kapse
age 50 years, occ. agril
2. Avchitrao Sitaram Kapse
age major, occ. agril
All r/o Viramgaon,Tq.Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
WITH
(27) FIRST APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad. Appellant
Versus
1. Rangnath Navgorao Karpe
age 50 years, occ. agri
2. Vithal Nagorao Karpe
age major, occ. agril
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::
{12}
fa123303.odt
3. Gopinath Nagorao Karpe
age major, occ. agril
4. Ramdas Nagorao Karpe
age major, occ. agril
All r/o Viramgaon, Tq. Sillod
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr. A.M. Phule, Assistant Government Pleader for appellant-State.
Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, advocate for respondents-claimants.
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 08th January, 2018. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard Mr.Phule, learned A.G.P. for appellants and
Mr.D.R.Jayabhar, advocate for Respondents-claimants.
2 Learned Counsel for the parties agree that these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment and order particularly, since in all these appeals, there are no cross objections filed by and on behalf of respondents. The appeals arise out of common Judgment and award made by the Reference Court.
3 In all these appeals, the State challenges the common judgment and award dated 27.1.2003, made by the Reference Court in several References concerning acquisition of properties from villages Pal, Viramgaon and Leha, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad, which came to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of Wakod Medium Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation in respect of ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {13} fa123303.odt the acquired land at the rates ranging between Rs.499/- to Rs.650/- per Are. Some compensation was also awarded towards trees. The claimants, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, had applied for References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are. However, the Reference Court, by judgment and award dated 27.01.2003, has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per Are in respect of the acquired lands. Compensation in respect of trees has been enhanced by approximately Rs.100/- per tree. At this juncture, it is also necessary to mention that in respect of pot kharab lands, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ Rs.15/- per Are, which has been enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.50/- per Are.
4 The acquisition, in all these cases, commenced with the issuance of Notification dated 11.05.1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made awards on 26.02.1999. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants applied for References and the Reference Court, by common judgment and award dated 27.01.2003, has enhanced the compensation broadly at the aforesaid rates. Hence, these appeals by the State.
5 Mr.Phule, learned A.G.P., at the very outset, has placed on record the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016, as corrected or amended by Corrigendums dated 23.02.2017, 04.05.2017 and 31.05.2017. The Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 records a policy decision of the State Government not to ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {14} fa123303.odt institute appeals or to settle already instituted appeals where compensation awarded by the Reference Court is less than four times the compensation prevalent as per the Ready Reckoner rates on the date of issue of Section 4 Notification. Generally, the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer corresponds to the ready reckoner rates prevalent on the date of issue of Section 4 Notification. In effect, therefore, the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 records policy decision of the State to settle the matters where enhanced compensation is less than four times the rate determined by the SLAO, where such rate broadly corresponds to the ready reckoner rates. This formula applies to the lands located in rural areas. Since, the lands, which form subject matter of present appeals, were located in rural areas, there is no dispute that it is this formula, which will be applicable to the present appeals.
6 In the present matters, as noted earlier, the SLAO had determined compensation at the rates ranging between Rs.499/- per Are to Rs.650/- per are. The Reference Court has determined compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per Are. This is well within the limits prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016. Accordingly, these appeals can be disposed of in terms of the State's own policy as set out in Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that this will be a proper course to follow taking into consideration the policy of the State itself as reflected in Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016. However, learned A.G.P. submits that in the absence of specific written instructions, he will not be in a position to withdraw these appeals.
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::{15} fa123303.odt 7 Mr.Phule, learned A.G.P., therefore, made submissions on merits of the appeal. He submits that in most of these cases, claimants failed to submit 7/12 extracts and, therefore, some adverse inference is required to be drawn against such claimants. He submits that in L.A.R. Nos.21/2000, 22/2000, 39/2000, 40/2000, 42/2000, 43/2000, 49/2000, 61/2000, 228/2000 and 47/2000, the claimants did submit 7/12 extracts. These documents did not indicate existence of fruit bearing trees. Despite this, the Reference Court has proceeded to determine the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees, which is clearly erroneous.
8 Mr.Phule, learned A.G.P., further submits that the claimants have merely deposed that they were earning income of Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- from each Mango Tree or Rs.5000/- from each Jamon Tree and Rs.40,000/- each from Tamarind tree or Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- from Guava and Lemon Trees. However, none of these claimants have submitted any documentary evidence to make good such statements. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees.
9 Mr.Phule further submits that the claimants, in their depositions, have not given details of depth, width and diameter of the wells, which they claimed were in existence in the acquired lands. They have also not deposed about the construction details like wear and tear expenditure insofar as such wells, pipelines, etc., claim to be allegedly constructed. In the absence of any such ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {16} fa123303.odt evidence, Mr.Phule submits that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation.
10 On the other hand, Mr.Jayabhar, learned Counsel for respondents-claimants, in these appeals, submits that the SLAO had himself determined the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and the Reference Court has merely enhanced such compensation hardly by Rs.100/- per tree. He submits, therefore, that it is impermissible for the State to raise any dispute as regards the very existence of fruit bearing trees. He submits that cogent evidence was led on behalf of claimants to establish income, which the claimants were earning from the fruit bearing trees. He submits that in the matters of sale of agricultural produce, it is not always possible to produce documentary evidence. However, evidence of the claimants has virtually gone unchallenged and taking into consideration the marginal increase awarded by the Reference Court, there is absolutely no error involved, which warrants interference.
11 Mr.Jayabhar submits that the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court is on extremely conservative basis and simply because most of the claimants were unable to raise necessary court fee, they have not filed any cross objections. He submits that these appeals are liable to be disposed of taking into consideration the State Government's own policy, as reflected in the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 or even otherwise, the appeals are liable to be dismissed since, they lack merit.
12 As noted earlier in all these cases, the SLAO had ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {17} fa123303.odt awarded compensation at the rates ranging between Rs.499/- to Rs.650/- per Are. The Reference Court has enhanced this compensation to Rs.700/- per Are. In some cases, the enhanced amount comes to virtually a pittance. For example, in First Appeal No.1238 of 2003, the SLAO had awarded total compensation towards land and fruit bearing trees of Rs.1,66,682/- and the Reference Court has enhanced this compensation hardly by Rs.4105/-. Similarly, in case of First Appeal No.1265 of 2003, the SLAO had awarded total compensation of Rs.3,26,325/-, and this has been enhanced by the Reference Court only by Rs.7181/-. In respect of such small amount, the State ought not to have even instituted the appeals, much less pursued the same. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Sahebrao Wable, 2017 (5) MhLJ 691, this Court has held that the appeals where the enhanced amount in the entirety does not exceed Rs.10,000/- may be dismissed by clarifying that the rate determined may not be treated as precedent.
13 The State Government has taken a policy decision which is reflected in the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 to in fact settle the land acquisition matters where enhanced compensation is less than four times the Ready Reckoner rates prevalent at the time of issuance of Section 4 Notification. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties agree that in 1995, when Section 4 Notification was issued in the present matters, Ready Reckoner rates were similar to the rates determined by the SLAO i.e. ranging between Rs.499/- and Rs.650/- per Are. The Reference Court, in the present matters, has enhanced the compensation to approximately Rs.700/- per Are, which is not even double the ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {18} fa123303.odt Ready Reckoner rates prevalent at the time of Section 4 Notification. In terms of the policy of the State Government, therefore, these matters are required to be settled or in any case, not pursued.
14 Despite the policy decision of the State Government, as reflected in the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016, invariably there is logistical and bureaucratic delay in imparting instructions to the Government Pleaders and Additional Government Pleaders. As such, the Government Pleaders and the Additional Government Pleaders are constrained to make their submissions on merits of the appeals, as has been done by Mr.Phule, learned A.G.P., in the present case.
15 Since, submissions have been made on merits of the appeal, they are required to be dealt with. Upon consideration of such submissions also, there is really no reason to interfere with the awards made by the Reference Court. It is true that in several matters, evidence in the form of 7/12 extracts may not have been produced by the claimants. However, non production of 7/12 extracts hardly warrants drawal of any adverse inference against the claimants.
16 In all these matters, there is no serious dispute that the claimants were indeed persons interested in the acquired land. The SLAO, who is nothing but an agent of the State Government, had himself awarded compensation to the claimants not only in respect of acquired lands but also in respect of trees standing in the acquired lands. What the Reference Court has done is that it ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {19} fa123303.odt has enhanced the compensation in respect of each tree by Rs.100/-. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept Mr.Phule's contention that there may not have been any trees existing in the acquired lands or in any case, some adverse inference needs to be drawn for failure to produce 7/12 extracts.
17 Similarly, merely because some 7/12 extracts, produced on record, may not record existence of fruit bearing trees, that by itself is not sufficient to deprive the claimants of the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. There is oral evidence on record as to the existence and yield of such trees, which has virtually gone unchallenged. In any case, since, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had himself determined compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees, it is now not possible to the State to urge that there were no fruit bearing trees in the acquired land. For these reasons, contentions of the learned A.G.P. cannot be accepted.
18 So far as income of the claimants from acquired lands is concerned, the claimants have deposed to the same. By applying test of preponderance of probabilities, it cannot be said that the claimants had deposed to some exorbitant or exaggerated figures. Even the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is well within the bounds of reasonability. As rightly contended by Mr.Jayabhar, in all such matters, it may not be possible for the agriculturists to produce documentary evidence as regards their agricultural income. This is particularly so, because normally no income tax is payable on agricultural income. That apart, the claims of the claimants appear to be well within the bounds of ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {20} fa123303.odt reasonability and these are not the cases where exorbitant rate has been claimed. In Land Acquisition matters, some amount of guesswork is inevitable. As long as the determination is not within the realm of surmises or conjectures, there is really no reason to interfere with the determination made by the Reference Court.
19 The claimants have deposed to the existence of wells. In the course of cross examination, no questions were put to the said witnesses as regards details or dimensions of such wells. Taking into consideration the compensation ultimately awarded by the Reference Court, there is really no reason to reduce the compensation by treating the lands unirrigated or having no benefit of water facilities. Thus, even on merits, there is no case made out to interfere with the common judgment and award dated 27.01.2003. The determination is quite consistent with the evidence on record and as noted earlier, the rate determined is within the bounds of reasonability.
20 It is necessary to note that the Reference Court has placed reliance on sale instances from village Viramgaon where the land was sold at the rate of Rs.750/- per Are vide sale deed dated 29.04.1994; the sale deed dated 14.08.1992 in respect of village Leha where the land was sold at the rate of Rs.750/- per Are; and sale deed dated 11.02.1995 from village Leha wheer the land was sold @ Rs.619/- per Are. The Reference Court has noted that all these sale deeds were referred to by the SLAO, however, the SLAO failed to determine the rates by taking into consideration said sale deeds. The sale deeds have been proved since one Gangaram, who was the attesting witness to the said sale deeds, was examined on ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {21} fa123303.odt behalf of the claimants. The material on record indicates that the sale instances were in respect of lands comparable to the acquired lands. The sale deeds indicate average rate of around Rs.700/- per Are, which is what has been awarded by the Reference Court. The claimants have also examined Mr.Choudhary as an expert witness. But the Reference Court, chose to discard evidence of this expert for the reasons set out in the impugned common judgment and award dated 21.07.2003. Even after discarding of such evidence, there is evidence to sustain marginal increase of Rs.100/- per tree, awarded by the Reference Court.
21 The Reference Court has also considered evidence on behalf of the State. Mr.Madhav Pande, District Superintendent Agriculture Officer was examined mainly on the aspect of trees and their fruit bearing capacity. The claimants had in fact claimed much higher compensation than what has been ultimately awarded by the Reference Court. As noted earlier, the award of compensation is within the bounds of reasonability and the same is supported by the material on record. Thus, even on merits, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 27.01.2003.
22 For all the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
23 In view of disposal of appeals, pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.
24 If any compensation amounts are deposited in this ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 ::: {22} fa123303.odt Court or Reference Court, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.
M.S.SONAK JUDGE adb/fa123303 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:03:37 :::