Manikchand Premraj Nahar Died Thr Lrs ... vs The Executive Engineer, Irrigation ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1660 Bom

Bombay High Court

Manikchand Premraj Nahar Died Thr Lrs ... vs The Executive Engineer, Irrigation ... on 19 January, 2024

                                      1                 84- C.A.686-2024.odt




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 686 OF 2024
        IN FAST/32729/2022 WITH C.A. NO. 687 OF 2023
       IN FAST/3274//2022 WITH C.A. NO. 688 OF 2023 IN
                        FAST/32716/22
Mishrilal Premraj Nahar Died Thr Lrs Kamalbai M. Nahar Died Thr Lrs
                           Sunil M. Nahar
                                                   ....Applicant
                             VERSUS

              The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division
                                                       .....Respondent
                                    .....
      Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.. P. Golewar h/f Mr. A. R. Joshi
      AGP for Respondent No.2: Mrs. R. R. Tandale
      Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. D.B. Pawar
                                ....

                                  CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
                                  DATE : 19.01.2024

PER COURT :

1.    Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

counsel for the acquiring body.



2.    Leave granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to bring

on record the legal heirs of respondent No.1-A in appeal.



3.    The learned counsel for the acquiring body submitted that the

civil Court has considered the valuation report which was prepared in
                                       2                 84- C.A.686-2024.odt



the absence of the appellant.        It was not admissible in evidence.

Therefore, only 50% of the deposited amount should be allowed to

withdraw.



4.     The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the

document was admissible. There was nothing to disbelieve the said

evidence.   Hence, at least 75% of the deposited amount may be

allowed to withdraw.


5.     Considering the arguments of the respective counsels the

following order is passed.

                             ORDER

(i) The applications are partly allowed.

(ii) The applicants are allowed to withdraw 75% of the amount out of which 50% amount along with accrued proportionate interest be released on the undertaking that they will deposit the amount if the judgment and award is reversed and 25% of the amount with accrued proportionate interest be released on furnishing security/surety and on the similar undertaking as mentioned above.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

ysk