The Executive Engineer, Lower ... vs Tanaji Kerba Bembade And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 10572 Bom

                                      1             56-fa-2732-2018.doc



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 2732 OF 2018
                                     WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4626 OF 2021
                                     AND
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3392 OF 2019

 The Executive Engineer
 Lower Medium Project Division, Latur
 Through Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
 Development Corporation, Aurangabad                   ... Appellant
      Versus

 1.       Tanaji Kerba Bembade
          Age: Major, Occup: Agriculturist

 2.       Shivaji Baburao Gunale
          Age: Major, Occup: Agriculturist

 3.       Vidyadhan Nivratti Krishnapure
          Age: Major, Occup: Agriculturist

 4.       Sushilabai Ashok Parge
          Age: Major, Occup: Agriculturist

 5.       Arvind Digambar Marewad
          Age: Major, Occup: Agriculturist,
          All R/o. Dhondwadi, Tq. Jalkot,
          Dist. Latur

 6.     The State of Maharashtra
        Through the Collector, Latur        ... Respondents
                                    ....
 Mr. S. G. Bhalerao, Advocate for appellant
 Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5
 Mr. S. B. Madde, Advocate for respondent No.3
 Mr. K. S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.6
 Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for applicant in CA No.3392/2019
                                    ....

                                                                             1 of 6




::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2021 01:49:54 :::
                                        2            56-fa-2732-2018.doc




                                   CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

DATED : 09th AUGUST, 2021

PER COURT :-

. This First Appeal has been filed by the acquiring body,

challenging the judgment and award dated 08.04.2013, passed by

the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir, in Land Acquisition

Reference (L.A.R.) No.2066 of 2013.

2. The connected appeals preferred by the very acquiring

body, have been settled in Lok Adalat. A copy of the order of

settlement dated 17.03.2019, passed in the Lok Adalat, has been

placed on record. Therefrom it appears that the appellant - acquiring

body had challenged the award of the Reference Court only on the

ground of grant of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894. According to the learned Advocate for the acquiring body,

the interest ought to have been granted in terms of the Full Bench

judgments of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.

Kailash Shiva Rangari - 2016 (4) All M.R. 513 (F.B.) and State of

Maharashtra vs. Ramesh Tukaram Meshram and another - 2018 (1)

All M.R. 645.

                                                                             2 of 6





                                         3            56-fa-2732-2018.doc

3. This appeal could not be settled in the Lok Adalat, since

sister of the respondent - Vidyadhan, has preferred intervention

application, claiming to have share in the land acquired. Now,

Vidyadhan has preferred Civil Application No. 4626 of 2021 for

withdrawal of the amount of compensation deposited in this Court

by the acquiring body.

4. Learned Advocate for the acquiring body would submit

that the appeal may be disposed of in view of the settlement arrived

at in connected matters. The acquiring body will be content with

such order.

5. Learned Advocate for the respondent - Vidyadhan has

no objection to dispose of the appeal as suggested by the learned

Advocate for the appellant - acquiring body.

6. In view of the same, the First Appeal stands disposed of

as suggested by the learned Advocate for the acquiring body and

consented by the learned Advocate representing the respondent -

Vidyadhan.

                                                                              3 of 6





                                         4            56-fa-2732-2018.doc

7. Both the parties agree for the calculation of interest in

view of decisions in State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari -

2016 (4) All M.R. 513 (F.B.) and State of Maharashtra vs. Ramesh

Tukaram Meshram and another - 2018 (1) All M.R. 645.

8. To this extent, the impugned award is set aside.

9. Respondent - Vidyadhan has moved Civil Application

No. 4626 of 2021 for withdrawal of the amount of compensation of

his share deposited in this Court. There is, however, Civil Application

No. 3392 of 2019 for intervention preferred by his sister - Dhondubai

Kerba Bembade, claiming to have ½ share in the land acquired and

necessarily the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the

acquired land. In support of her claim, she has placed on record a

copy of the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit

(R.C.S.) No. 30 of 2017. The land Gut Nos. 151, 160 and 154 were

the subject matter of the said suit. While the land Gut No.151

(acquired land) is the subject matter of the present appeal. Reading

of the judgment in R.C.S. No.30 of 2017, thus indicates the trial

Court to have held the intervener - Dhondubai Kerba Bembade, to

have equal share with Vidyadhan in all the three lands. In the

operative order, the trial Court, however, did not make reference to

4 of 6

5 56-fa-2732-2018.doc

the land Gut No.151. From the reasons given by the trial Court, it

appears that no reference to the said land has been made in the

operative order since the land was the subject matter of acquisition

and the learned Judge expected the parties to approach the

concerned Court or the Reference Court. The fact, however, remains

that the intervener - Dhondubai Kerba Bembade, is declared to have

½ share in the land acquired. The learned Advocate for Vidyadhan

informs to have filed appeal against the judgment and decree passed

in R.C.S. No.30 of 2017. Be that as it may, fact remains that the

intervener - Dhondubai Kerba Bembade is declared to have ½ share

in the land acquired.

10. It would, therefore, not be desirable to grant withdrawal

of the entire amount in favour of Vidyadhan. Keeping aside 50% of

the amount deposited by the acquiring body in this Court for

securing the claim of Vidyadhan's sister, balance amount i.e. 50%

could be paid to Vidyadhan.

11. It is informed that the amount deposited by the

acquiring body in this appeal towards the share of respondent Nos.

2, 3 and 5, has not sought to be withdrawn by these respondents. It

is, therefore, directed that whatever amount has been deposited by

5 of 6

6 56-fa-2732-2018.doc

the acquiring body in this appeal, be transferred to the Reference

Court for being paid to the rightful claimants as per their share and

the excess amount which would become payable to the appellant -

acquiring body in view of calculation of interest granted under

Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, pursuant to the Full Bench

Judgment, be returned to the acquiring body.

12. So far as regards the amount deposited by the acquiring

body towards the claim of Vidyadhan is concerned, 50% thereof be

paid to Vidyadhan. The remaining 50% amount be kept in fixed

deposit towards the share of the intervener. This is to be done only

after the exact figure of amount payable to Vidyadhan and his sister

is ascertained in terms of the Full Bench judgment.

13. In view of disposal of the First Appeal, Civil Application

Nos. 3392 of 2019 and 4626 of 2021 also stand disposed of.

[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]

SMS

6 of 6