Bombay High Court
The Ex. Engineer, Nimna Terna Project ... vs Ramesh Narayan Jadhav And Anr on 4 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:10801
fa3062.19-
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3062 OF 2019
1. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Terna Project (Canal)
Division No.2, Latur
District Latur
Through
Satyawan s/o Namdeorao Bachpalle
Age 56 years, Occ. Service as
Sub -Divisional Engineer,
At Sakol Medium Project Sub Division
Walandi, District Latur (Ori. R. No.2)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through - The Collector, Latur (Ori. R. No.1)
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Ori. R. No.3)
Swarna Project, Latur ...Appellants
Versus
Bhausaheb Pandhari Rautrao
Age 38 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Chikalthana, (Ori. Claimant)
Tq. and district Latur ...Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3063 OF 2019
1. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Terna Project (Canal)
Division No.2, Latur
District Latur
Through
Satyawan s/o Namdeorao Bachpalle
Age 56 years, Occ. Service as
Sub -Divisional Engineer,
At Sakol Medium Project Sub Division
Walandi, District Latur (Ori. R. No.2)
2. The State of Maharashtra
fa3062.19-
-2-
Through - The Collector, Latur (Ori. R. No.1)
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Ori. R. No.3)
Swarna Project, Latur ...Appellants
Versus
Prabhavati w/o Limbraj Patil
Age 65 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Chikalthana, (Ori. Claimant)
Tq. and district Latur ...Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3064 OF 2019
1. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Terna Project (Canal)
Division No.2, Latur
District Latur
Through
Satyawan s/o Namdeorao Bachpalle
Age 56 years, Occ. Service as
Sub -Divisional Engineer,
At Sakol Medium Project Sub Division
Walandi, District Latur (Ori. R. No.2)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through - The Collector, Latur (Ori. R. No.1)
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Ori. R. No.3)
Swarna Project, Latur ...Appellants
Versus
1. Ramesh Narayan Jadhav
Age 46 years, Occ. Agriculture
2. Dattatraya Narayan Jadhav
Age 41 years, Occ. Agriculture
Both R/o. Chikalthana, (Ori. Claimants)
Tq. and district Latur ...Respondents
.....
Mr. Shyam C. Arora, advocate for the appellant No.1
Mr. B.B. Bhise, A.G.P. for appellant Nos. 2 and 3
fa3062.19-
-3-
Mr. N.D. Kendre, advocate for respondents
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2022
1. Ramesh Narayan Jadhav
Age 54 years, Occ. Agriculture
2. Dattatraya Narayan Jadhav
Age 49 years, Occ. Agriculture
Both R/o. Chikalthana, ....Appellants
Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Claimants)
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
district Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Swarna Project, Latur
District Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Terna Kalva Vibhag No.2
(Medium Project, Division No.2)
Latur District Latur ...Respondents
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2022
Prabhavati w/o Limbraj Patil
Age 74 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Chikalthana, ...Appellant
Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Claimants)
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
district Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Swarna Project, Latur
fa3062.19-
-4-
District Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Terna Kalva Vibhag No.2
(Medium Project, Division No.2)
Latur District Latur ...Respondents
.....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2022
Bhausaheb s/o Pandhari Rautrao
Age 46 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Chikalthana, ...Appellant
Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Claimants)
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
district Latur
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Swarna Project, Latur
District Latur
3. The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Terna Kalva Vibhag No.2
(Medium Project, Division No.2)
Latur District Latur ...Respondents
.....
Mr. N.D. Kendre, advocate for appellants
Mr. B.B. Bhise, A.G.P. for appellant Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. Shyam C. Arora, advocate for the appellant No.3
.....
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE OF RESERVING : 06.01.2025
THE JUDGMENT
DATE OF PRONOUNCING : 04.04.2025
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT:-
1. The first appeal Nos. 3062 of 2019, 3063 of 2019 and 3064
fa3062.19-
of 2019 are preferred by the acquiring body and the State of
Maharashtra against the common judgment and award dated 31 st
October, 2017, delivered by the learned Reference Court in L.A.R.
Nos. 117 of 2012, 121 of 2012 and 122 of 2012, whereas the first
appeal Nos. 765 of 2022, 766 of 2022 and 767 of 2022 are filed by
the claimants against the same common judgment and award. Since
the lands in question and the Land Acqusition References are
decided commonly, all these appeals are tagged together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The L.A.R. Nos. 117, 121 and 122 of 2012 were moved under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the "LA Act")
for enhancement of compensation amount. All those land references
arose out of one and the same land acquisition process in respect of
the agriculture lands situated in village Chikalthana, Tq. and district
Latur vide Government notification under section 4 of LA Act, as per
the following chart.
Sr. Name of L.A.R. Block Area Total Awarded by
No. claimants No. No. acquire compensation Reference
d paid by L.A.O. Court per R
per R
1 Bhausaheb 122/12 131 44 R 2,66,997/- 13,610/-
Rautrao
2 Prabhavati 117/12 131 0 H 23 R 1,49,002/- 13,610/-
Patil
3 Ramesh 121/12 116 0 H 55 R 4,27,815/- 13,610/-
Jadhav and
Dattatraya
Jadhav
fa3062.19-
3. Those lands were acquired for the public purpose i.e.
submergence of Khulgapur Upper level dam at village Chikalthana,
Taluka and District Latur. The declaration under Sections 4 and 5 of
the LA Act came to be published on 19.06.2009.
4. The claimants claim in short is as under:-
The claimants' grievance is that the acquired agriculture
lands are situated at village Chikalthana, Tahsil and district Latur at
bank of Manjara river having black rich cotton soil with depth of more
than 80 feet. Those lands were having water facility through river
Manjara. They used to cultivate those lands by getting water by
pipeline from that river Manjara. The village Chikalthana is 8
kilometers away from Latur city. There is State highway at half
kilometer away which passes from Latur to Nanded. The Latur city is
developing towards the acquired lands. Moreover, agricultural
college, agricultural university center are 5 kilometers away from the
acquired lands. There are hotels, workshops, warehouses, big
godowns, automobile show rooms, service centers etc. near to the
said lands. There is solvent extraction oil plant. There are other
commercial developments. Modern horticulture and floriculture
centers are developed in that area and vicinity. There is railway
station at village Bhatangali having broad-gauge between Latur to
Hyderabad, which is two kilometers away from acquired land. The
fa3062.19-
acquired lands are having N.A. potentiality for residential, commercial
and modern developments. There are surrounding villages such as
Bhatangali, Kasarkheda, Chikalthana, Kolpa and Bhatkheda, are
within the vicinity of those lands and have scope for development.
5. It is also the case of the claimants that their lands are perennial
irrigated lands. They were harvesting commercial crops, such as
Sugarcane, Banana, Chilly, Paddy, Rabbi Jawar, vegetables etc. The
acquired lands were capable of cultivating double crops i.e. rainy and
winter season crops. The claimants were getting handsome income
from the said lands, which are situated within the command area of
four sugar factories. It is contended that the population of the said
village was having more than 4000 at the time of acquisition. At
village Bhatangali, there is Government Rural Hospital, which is
adjacent to those acquired lands. There were facilities viz. telephone,
school, bus-stand, veterinary hospital at Bhatkheda. There is post
office, Gram Panchayat office, society etc. There are private as well
as public buildings, temples within the vicinity of the said village.
There is State Highway between Latur to Beed via Kolpa, which is
only one and half kilometers away from the acquired lands. There is
ring road which is one kilometer away from the said lands. The
Government through the CIDCO declared the schemes of
developments of Latur city in the vicinity of acquired lands.
fa3062.19-
6. The claimants further contended that the S.L.A.O. has ignored
the above vital aspects and awarded the compensation of Rs.2720/-
per Are. According to the claimants, the said compensation is
grossly inadequate. According to the claimants, price of the acquired
land is Rs.87,500/- per Are and the claimants claimed enhancement
of compensation accordingly with respect to the lands, trees, pipeline
and also claimed other statutory benefits.
7. The respondents by their written statement Exh.9 and 11
denied the material contentions raised by the claimants in their claim
petitions. It is not disputed that the lands were acquired by the
respondents. It is contended that the said lands are having medium
type of quality and claimants were cultivating those only in Kharip
season (rainy crops). According to the respondents there is no
permanent source of water for irrigating those lands. The material
facts that the said lands are of rich black cotton soil having huge
depth and those were irrigated are denied. The respondents also
denied the fertility and potentiality of the acquired lands.
8. The respondents-acquiring body further contended that they
visited the site and verified the spot. They conducted enquiry and
fixed the proper, adequate and reasonable price of the acquired
lands. The compensation amount was fixed on the basis of sale
fa3062.19-
instances and considering the assessment of the land revenue. It is
specifically denied that the possession of the acquired lands was
taken by the private negotiations. It was lastly prayed to dismiss the
claim petitions with other statutory benefits.
9. The learned Reference court framed five issues and held that
the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. was inadequate. It also
held that the market price of the acquired land was Rs.13,610/- per
Are. Lastly, the references were allowed by granting compensation
at the rate of Rs.13,610/- per Are.
10. Learned advocate for the acquiring body submitted that the
amount of compensation awarded by the Reference court is not legal
and correct. He submitted that the evidence is not properly
appreciated and huge amount of compensation is awarded against
the provisions of law and principles of natural justice. It is lastly
prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the claimants and allow the
appeals filed by the acquiring body and the State Government by
setting aside the impugned common judgment. It failed to consider
entire evidence on record in its proper perspectives. The impugned
common judgment is to be set aside.
11. The learned advocate for the claimants pointed out the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants and prayed to
fa3062.19-
allow the appeals filed by them by enhancing the amount of
compensation.
12. Learned A.G.P. for the respondents/State submitted that the
amount of compensation granted by the reference court is
reasonable amount. It is in accordance with the evidence on record.
Learned A.G.P. for the respondent State further submitted that the
reasoned awards were passed against which the references were
preferred.
13. The following point emerged for consideration:-
(1) Is impugned common judgment and award illegal, incorrect
and requires interference ?
14. The admitted facts are that in the reference case of LAR (G)
No.122 of 2012 the amount of compensation at the rate of
Rs.13,610/- per R was awarded.
15. This Court has perused the pleadings and entire evidence of
both the sides.
16. The claimants have relied upon the documents particularly the
awards passed by the LAO at Exh.22, in which all block numbers of
the claimants which were acquired alongwith the area are mentioned.
fa3062.19-
The claimants have also relied upon the award, E-statement at
Exh.23.
17. Claimant/CW 1 Bhausaheb Rautrao adduced evidence by filing
his affidavit in support of his claim at Exh.28 and reiterated the
material contentions as per claim petition. The claimants have relied
upon the receipt of payment made at Exh.57 and 58, the claimants
have relied upon the receipt of payment of land revenue at Exh.48 to
59. They have also relied upon the certificate issued by the
Executive Director of Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Limited and the details of the supply of the sugarcane at Exh.63 to
65, the letter issued to Bhausaheb Rautrao by the said sugar factory
at Exh.66 and 67, the registration of sugarcane crop for Manjara
Sugar Factory Exh.68, the bills for supply of sugarcane Exh.69 and
70, the bills of A.P.M.C. Latur Exh.71 to 76, copy of claim made by
one Prabhawatibai Patil in L.A.R. office in L.A.R. proceeding of
2007L.A./Swarna/CR/14 at Exh.77, notice issued to Bhausaheb
Rautrao by the acquisition authority under Section 9 of the LA Act
1894 at Exh.78, the communication for spot inspection along with its
report is at Exh.79, copy of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act
1894 is at Exh.80, the papers of receiving of the amount of
compensation at Exh.81 to 83, the sale deeds of the said property at
Ex.84 to 86, the 7x12 extract of agriculture land of claimant
fa3062.19-
Bhausaheb Rautrao is at Exh.87, the 7x12 extract of Ramesh Jadhav
and Dattatraya Jadhav is at Exh.88, the 7x12 extract of
Prabhavatibai Patil Exh.89, the map of village Chikalthana district
Latur is at Exh.90, the draft development map notified fringe area
alongwith common measurement report is at Exh.91, the bills of
M.S.E.B. Exh.95 to 97, the 7x12 extract of the land of claimant
Bhausaheb Rautrao at Exh.98, Prabhavatibai Patil a Exh.99,
Ramesh Jadhav and Dattatraya Jadhav Exh.100, the State
Government relied upon the award, E statement alongwith the map
of the Tahsil Latur showing names of village at Exh.104, copy of the
order passed by the Land Reference court in LA Case No. 5 of 2012
at Exh.109, in which compensation of Rs.13610/- was granted by the
said Court in L.A.R. No. 5 of 2012 etc. for the land acquired of the
same village for submergence of Khulgapur Upper level dam.
18. The learned reference court in para 27 of the impugned
judgment and award compared the sale deeds at Exh.84 to 86 as
well as the award passed in Exh. 109 LAR No. 5/12 dated 18.9.2007
and concluded as per that judgment and award that the claimants are
entitled for compensation of Rs.13,610/- per Are on the principle of
parity.
19. The question before this court is that whether the agriculture
land acquired by the respondents are irrigated or dry crop lands.
fa3062.19-
Whether the market price of the said lands considered and granted
by the reference court in earlier Land Reference No.5 of 2012 etc. is
correct or not ?
20. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body has relied
upon the sale instance at Exh.85. The sale-deed of the land situated
at village Chikalthana, Taluka and District Latur bearing block No.45
admeasuring 0.45 R land was sold for Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. @
Rs.13,610/- per R. It has also relied upon the judgment of the
reference court of the same designation regarding same type of the
property of the same village at Exh.109 in LAR No.5 of 2012 in which
the sale-deed at Exh.85 was also considered and relied upon. On
that basis, the market price of the acquired lands was finalized.
21. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body further
submitted that the sale-deed may be relied upon, however, it has to
be considered with the settled position of law, particularly, the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of General
Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, reported in, (2008) 14
Supreme Court Cases 745, in which the Honourable Supreme
Court held as under:-
"Whether the increase should be at a cumulative rate or
fa3062.19-
a flat rate?
18. The increase in market value is calculated with
reference to the market value during the immediate
preceding year. When market value is sought to be
ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place
some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to
calculate the year to year increase. As the percentage of
increase is always with reference to the previous year's
market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the
increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. The
difference between the two methods is shown by the
following illustration (with reference to a 10% increase over a
basic price of Rs 10 per square metre):
Year By flat rate increase method By cumulative increase method
1987 10.00 10.00
(Base year)
1988 10 + 1 = 11.00 10.00 + 1.00 = 11.00
1989 11 + 1 = 12.00 11.00 + 1.10 = 12.10
1990 12 + 1 = 13.00 12.10 + 1.21 = 13.31
1991 13 + 1 = 14.00 13.31 + 1.33 = 14.64
1992 14 + 1 = 15.00 14.64 + 1.46 = 16.10
19. We may also point out that application of a flat rate will
lead to anomalous results. This may be demonstrated with
further reference to the above illustration. In regard to the
sale transaction in 1987, where the price was Rs 10 per
square metre, if the annual increase to be applied is a flat
rate of 10%, the increase will be Rs 1 per annum during each
of the five years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the
price increase is to be determined with reference to sale
transaction of the year 1989 when the price was Rs 12 per
square metre, the flat rate increase will be Rs 1.20 per
annum, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price
increase is determined with reference to a sale transaction of
the year 1990 when the price was Rs 13 per square metre,
then the flat rate increase will be Rs 1.30 per annum for the
fa3062.19-
years 1991 and 1992. It will thus be seen that even if the
percentage of increase is constant, the application of a flat
rate leads to different amounts being added depending upon
the market value in the base year. On the other hand, the
cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more
realistic results. Whether the base price is Rs 10 or Rs 12.10
or Rs 13.31, the increase will lead to the same result. The
logical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to apply
the increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate.
For what period should the increase be calculated?
20. The Reference Court has stated that the gap
between 6-1-1987 (the date of transaction covered by Ext.
15) and 15-9-1992 (the date of acquisition under
consideration) was six-and-half years. It therefore calculated
the increase for six-and-half years. This is obviously
erroneous. The actual gap is five years and eight months and
not six-and-half years. However, for the purpose of
calculation, we have to exclude the year of the relied-upon
transaction, which is the base year. If the year of relied-upon
transaction is 1987, the increase is applied not from 1987
itself, but only from the next year which is 1988. If the rate
was Rs 10 per square metre in 1987, and the cumulative rate
of increase is 7.5% per year, the price will be Rs 10.75 in
1988, Rs 11.56 in 1989, Rs 12.42 in 1990, Rs 13.35 in 1991
and Rs 14.35 in 1992. Thus, the calculation of increase is
only for five years and not for six-and-half years."
22. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body further relied
upon the judgment of this Court delivered in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in, 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457, in
fa3062.19-
which this Court held as under:-
"32. ....
(i) ....
(ii) The interest as provided under section 34 of the
said Act shall start running from the date of
possession, only if the possession is taken by the
Collector in exercise of his powers under section
17 of the said Act which would obviously be after
issuance of notice under section 9(1) of the said
Act. If the possession is taken under section 17,
the interest payable under section 34 of the said
Act shall start running from the date of
possession and not from the date of award.
"33. ....
(a) If the possession is taken before the notification
under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is
published and/or before the award is passed, the
landowner would be entitled for interest as per
section 34 necessarily from the date of passing of
the award under section 11 of the said Act,
except in cases where the possession is taken in
accordance with section 17 of the said Act, and in
that situation only, the provision of section 34 of
the said Act shall start operating from the date of
possession."
23. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body submitted
that the year of reckoning the amount of compensation is to be
fa3062.19-
calculated by excluding the year of the sale transaction and
escalation is to be reckoned from the year subsequent to the date of
that relied sale transaction.
24. In the case in hand, considering the ratio laid down in the
above two authorities and the reasons given by the reference court,
this court is of the view that the amount of compensation granted on
the basis of sale-deed at Exh.85 must be deducted i.e. 10% for the
year 2006 and 10% for the year 2007. Thus, if 20% amount is
deducted from the said amount of Rs.13,610/- per R. that amount
comes to Rs.13,334/- per R, which is proper and correct amount of
compensation.
25. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body submitted
that the statutory interest granted as per Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act, is not properly and correctly granted. It has to be
awarded from the date of award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act for
the first year. He pointed out para 4 of final / operative order of the
impugned order.
26. On perusal of the judgment of this court and the law laid down
by this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari (supra), the payment of interest is to be computed from the
date of taking of possession of acquired land and not from the date of
fa3062.19-
award. The said interest is to be granted from the date of award by
the reference court, which is not legal and correct, in view of the law
laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari (supra).
27. This court has re-appreciated entire evidence. After
considering the grounds of objections raised in the appeals preferred
by the claimants, this court do not find that all lands are irrigated
lands. Therefore, the sale instance at Exh.85 relied upon by the
learned reference court though found correct, it was not considered
in view of the law laid down in the case of General Manager, Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai
Patel and another (supra) i.e. 10% deduction for two years, which
remain to be corrected. The learned trial court thus, come to the right
conclusion, except these two grounds discussed above. It has rightly
disbelieved the sale instance at Exh.109.
28. The third important aspect Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the
acquiring body pointed out that initially an amount of Rs.16,36,323/-
was deposited by the acquiring body, which was withdrawn by the
claimants. Thereafter, the claimants preferred special leave petition
before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme
Court directed the acquiring body to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- more. It
was deposited accordingly. It was also withdrawn by the claimants as
fa3062.19-
per the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.3062 of 2019.
He submits that there is excess payment of amount to the claimants,
to which they are not entitled in view of the law laid down in the
authority of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another (supra). It
is submitted that while passing the final order, necessary directions
are to be given to the claimants to repay the excess amount. On
careful perusal of the order passed by the Honourable Supreme
Court and as held above, the amount of compensation is to be
reduced by 10% from the year 2006 and 2007. Therefore, after
calculation of that amount and after considering the date of
notification and rate of interest as per Section 23 of the LA Act,
certain amount which is excessively withdrawn by the claimants,
needs to be repaid to the acquiring body.
29. In view of the above reasons, this court is of the view that the
learned trial court rightly decided the quantum of compensation on
the market rate. It failed to deduct 10% amount for two years.
Therefore, interference is partly warranted in the impugned common
judgment and award.
30. There is no substance in the grounds of objections raised in
the appeals preferred by the claimants and on re-appreciation of the
evidence and the grounds of objections, this court is of the view that
fa3062.19-
there is no justifiable ground to enhance the amount of
compensation. In view of the above, the appeals preferred by the
claimants deserve to be dismissed, the appeals preferred by the
acquiring authority deserve to be partly allowed and the impugned
common judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside.
Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
31. In the result, the following order:-
ORDER
I. The appeals preferred by the claimants are
dismissed.
II. The appeals preferred by the acquiring authority are
partly allowed and the impugned common judgment
and award is partly set aside in respect of clause (2)
and part of clause (5) of the final operative order.
The same are corrected as follows:-
2) The enhanced market value of the
acquired lands is fixed @ Rs.13,334/- per
R. Accordingly, the Registry shall calculate
the amount and pay it to the claimants. If
the claimants have withdrawn excess
amount, the difference amount be adjusted
as paid and the excess/balance amount be
paid to the appellant / acquiring authority.
5) Respondent / acquiring authority shall pay
fa3062.19-
interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants
on the enhanced amount of compensation
from the date of award under Section 11 of
the Land Acquisition Act for the first year.
And at the rate of 15% per annum
on the amount of compensation for the
subsequent period till the date of deposit
of enhanced amount of compensation in
the Court under Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
III. The claimant in First Appeal No.3062 of 2019 is
directed to repay the excess amount withdrawn by
him to the acquiring body within four months from
today with interest @ 5% per annum as per the
order of this Court dated 1st December, 2021 passed
in Civil Application No.3776 of 2021. If it is not paid,
it be recovered according to law.
IV. The bank guaranty submitted by the claimant in First
Appeal No.3062 of 2019 is discharged on recovery
of excess amount to be paid to the acquiring
authority.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
