Partly allowed

Pandharinath Dnyanoba Kendre and Ors. v. the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Nanded Tal and Dist Nanded and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2023CA/7567/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed original claimants to withdraw Rs.6.5 crore from the land acquisition award pending in appeal, holding the awarded amount insufficient despite the acquiring body's objection regarding unproven fruit-bearing trees.

What did the court decide?

Applicants allowed to withdraw amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- from the awarded building amount.

Pandharinath Dnyanoba Kendre and Ors. Vs the Executive… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

925-ca-7567-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7567 OF 2023 IN FA/3485/2022

¶4

PANDHARINATH DNYANOBA KENDRE AND ORS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NANDED TAL
AND DIST NANDED AND ORS

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Kale Ajeet B.
AGP for Respondent No.1 – State : Mr. A. M. Phule
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti Chaudhari

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND

¶9

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 1st September, 2023

¶11

ORDER :-

¶12

. Present application has been filed for withdrawal of entire 75% of

¶13

the awarded amount. Present applicant is the original claimant in Land
Acquisition Reference No.537 of 2010. The appeal has been preferred by
the acquiring body to challenge the award. By order dated 11.10.2022
passed by this Court stay to the impugned award was granted, subject to
deposit of 75% of the amount along with interest accrued thereon till date
within a period of 12 weeks. By order dated 04.01.2023, extension was

¶14

prayed by the acquiring body and it was granted. It appears that amount of
Rs.8,95,80,545/- came to be deposited on 15.04.2023.

¶15

[1]

¶16

925-ca-7567-2023.odt

¶17

2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. B. Kale for the applicants, learned
Advocate Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti Chaudhari respondent No.1 and learned
AGP Mr. A. M. Phule for respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State .

¶18

3.According to the learned Advocate for the original claimants
whatever has been awarded by the reference Court is in fact meager
amount and he has taken into consideration the evidence, but then still
deducted 50% in respect of fruit bearing trees. Up till now amount has not
been given to the claimants though their land has been acquired long back
and, therefore, they be allowed to withdraw the entire amount.

¶19

4.Learned Advocate for the acquiring body objects and submits that
though it has been observed by the learned reference Court that basic
evidence has not been produced to prove that there were fruit bearing
trees, their numbers and how much was the age of the trees and therefore,
whatever 50% has been awarded is also beyond the evidence.

¶20

5.It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the original claimants
has been acquired. Under the said circumstance, it is the bounden duty of
the acquiring body to compensate them adequately. Now, there is dispute
as regards the the rate as well as the fact that there were many trees in the
land. It appears from the record that in all four witnesses were examined
by the claimants and then by appreciating their evidence, the impugned

¶21

[2]

¶22

925-ca-7567-2023.odt

¶23

award has been passed. The appeal has been preferred by the acquiring
body for the grounds enumerated in the appeal memo. Definitely, the
interest of the claimants is also required to be protected. Under the said
circumstance, the application stands partly allowed.

¶24

6. The applicants – original claimants are allowed to withdraw amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore Fifty Lakhs).

¶25

7. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

¶26

[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

scm

¶28

[3]

Pandharinath Dnyanoba Kendre and Ors. v. the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Nanded Tal and Dist Nanded and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandharinath Dnyanoba Kendre and Ors. v. the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Nanded Tal and Dist Nanded and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maanoj Vinayakrao Ghodkay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Nana Yelmame and Others Vs State of Maharashtra

Ramchandra S/O. Lahanuji Divase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Riyaz Shaikh Gani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Cidco Aurangabad Chief Officer Cidco Aurangabad Vs Santosh Ekanat Zhalke and Ors.

Dashrath @ Dk S/O Laxman Kasbe Vs the State of Maharashtra