Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Anjali on 18 October, 2012
Bench: M.L. Tahaliyani
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 19:18:06 :::
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 19:18:06 :::
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 19:18:06 :::
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 19:18:06 :::
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 19:18:06 :::
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 19:18:06 :::
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 19:18:06 :::
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 19:18:06 :::
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/-
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,
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.)
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
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
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 :
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
