✦ High Court of India

Bombaybench High Court

Case Details

2025:BHC-AUG:29943 FA 527 20.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSCHANDRASING PARSRAM CHAVAN AND ANR...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde...ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3587 OF 2022BHAGCHAND SANDU RATHODVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2852 OF 2024SHANKAR DAMALA JADHAV (DIED) THR. LRS. JAVHARLAL SHANKARJADHAV AND ORSVERSUSTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO.1AURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... FIRST APPEAL NO. 3891 OF 2019THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABAD1/28

Legal Reasoning

FA 527 20.odtVERSUSMAMRAJ HANSRAJ RATHOD DIED THR. LRS. SULOCHANABAI RATHODAND ORS.…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Sham B. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1F : Mr. D.A. Bide ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3892 OF 2019THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADVERSUSSHANKAR DAMLA JADHAV (DIED) THR LRS JAVAHARLAL AND ORS…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Sham B.Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3894 OF 2019THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADVERSUSUKHA HARLAL RATHOD DIED THR. LRS NIVRUTTI RATHOD AND OTHERS…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Sham B.Advocate FOR Respondent Nos. 1A and 1B : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3893 OF 2019WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5420 OF 2024 IN FA/3893/2019THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADVERSUSKESHAV ZIPA CHAVHAN (DIED) THR LRS SAVITRIBAI AND ORS…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Sham B.Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. B.A. Shinde AND2/28 FA 527 20.odtFIRST APPEAL NO. 1704 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6911 OF 2022 IN FA/1704/2025THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECT DIV. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSBHAGCHAND SANDU RATHOD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Swami Mahesh C.Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSASHABAI GANESH CHAVAN AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3954 OF 2022PANDIT GANGU RATHODVERSUSTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, AURANGABAD ANDANOTHER…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D. A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsundar B. AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3588 OF 2022GANESH BABU CHAVANVERSUSTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, AURANGABAD AND3/28 FA 527 20.odtANOTHER…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3620 OF 2022MADAN MOHANLAL RATHODVERSUSTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no.2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3575 OF 2022JAWAHARLAL SHANKAR JADHAV AND ANRVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no.2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3576 OF 2022DEVA HARLAL RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS LILABAI AND ORSVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... 4/28 FA 527 20.odtWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 3621 OF 2022PHULSING SANDU RATHODVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1735 OF 2021WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8791 OF 2021 IN FA/1735/2021THE GMIDC, THR THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. 1AURANGABAD AND ANRVERSUSRAJMAL BALU CHAVAN… Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Gaikwad A.M.Advocate for Respondent : Mr. D.A. Bide ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1736 OF 2021WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8793 OF 2021 IN FA/1736/2021THE GMIDC, THR THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. 1AURANGABAD AND ANRVERSUSBHAGCHAND HANSRAJ CHAVAN…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Gaikwad Anil M. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. D.A. Bide ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2851 OF 20245/28 FA 527 20.odtBHAGCHAND HANSRAJ CHAVANVERSUSTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.I.D. 1 AURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Ruturaj AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3583 OF 2022DHIRSING MANSING PAWARVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC,AURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D. A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsundar B. AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3956 OF 2022SANTOSH SHESHMAL CHAVANVERSUSTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1, AURANGABAD ANDANOTHER…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1734 OF 2021WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8789 OF 2021 IN FA/1734/2021THE GMIDC, THR THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. 1AURANGABAD AND ANRVERSUSVATSALABAI MOHAN RATHOD6/28 FA 527 20.odt…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Gaikwad Anil M. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. D.A. Bide ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3534 OF 2022RAJMAL BALU CHAVANVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC,AURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3955 OF 2022ASHOK MAMRAJ CHAVANVERSUSTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1, AURANGABAD ANDANOTHER…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3974 OF 2022ASHABAI GANESH CHAVANVERSUSTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1, AURANGABAD ANDANOTHER…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D. A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsundar B. AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... AND7/28 FA 527 20.odtFIRST APPEAL NO. 3533 OF 2022SUDAM SANDU RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS. UKHARDABAI SUDAM RATHODAND ORSVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1, SINCHAN BHAVAN,AURANGABAD…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3529 OF 2022GANESH MORSING CHAVANVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3965 OF 2022DHANA S/O MANU @ NANU RATHODVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B. A.G.P. for Respondent no.2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3594 OF 2022CHANDRASING PARASRAM CHAVANVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC,AURANGABAD AND ANR…8/28 FA 527 20.odtAdvocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no.2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde … ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3545 OF 2022BHIVSING MANSING PAWARVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC,AURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3546 OF 2022RAMU ZIPA RATHODVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no.2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3532 OF 2022KESHAV ZIPA CHAVAN (DIED) THR LRS SAVITRIBAI AND ORSVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3623 OF 2022RAJESH RANGLAL CHAVANVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC,9/28 FA 527 20.odtAURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3530 OF 2022VATSALABAI MOHAN RATHODVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC,AURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3592 OF 2022MEHTAB MAGAN CHAVANVERSUSTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, AURANGABAD…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3626 OF 2022SHEVANTABAI BHAGCHAND RATHODVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC,AURANGABAD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3711 OF 2022MAMRAJ HANSRAJ RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS SULOCHANA AND ORSVERSUS10/28 FA 527 20.odtTHE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde …ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3624 OF 2022UKHA HARLAL RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS NIVRUTI AND ANRVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MIONR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3531 OF 2022DEVKABAI SHIVRAJ CHAVAN (DIED) THR LRS SHIVRAJ AND ORSVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MIONR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.A.G.P. for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde…ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3869 OF 2022ISHWAR RAMLAL CHAVAN (DIED) THR LRS SAKHUBAI AND ORSVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MIONR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaA.G.P. for Respondent no.2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde… ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABAD11/28 FA 527 20.odtTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSDEVKABAI SHIVRAJ CHAVAN AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A.Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSGANESH MORSING CHAVAN AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSDEVA HARLAL RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS LILABAI AND ORS…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 5: Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 528 OF 2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSMEHTAB MAGAN CHAVAN AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 2: Mr. B.A. Shinde ... AND12/28 FA 527 20.odtFIRST APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSSHEVANTABAI BHAGCHAND RATHOD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2020 IN FA/532/2020THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSSHAIKH HASAN SHAIKH CHAND AND ANR…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bhalerao Sudhir G.AGP for Respondents: Mr. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Wayal Vitthal And D A Bide For R/1, Gp ForR/2, Wayal V B And D A Bide For R/1, Agp For R/2 ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 3580 OF 2022DIPAK SAIDAS RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS REKHA WD/O DIPAK RATHODAND ORSVERSUSTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD ANDANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Tejas CharudattaAdvocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Patil Shamsunder B.AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1705 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10820 OF 2021 IN FA/1705/202513/28

Legal Reasoning

FA 527 20.odtTHE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECT DIV. 1 AURANGABADTHR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSPANDIT GANGU RATHOD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Swami Mahesh C.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ...ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1706 OF 2025ANDCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6902 OF 2022 IN FA/1706/2025THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION 1, AURANGABAD THRG.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADVERSUSSUDAM SANDU RATHOD AND ANR…Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Swami Mahesh C.Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D.A. BideAGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde ... CORAM :SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :15.10.2025JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:17.10.2025JUDGMENT :-.Heard Mr. Bide, learned counsel for the appellants – claimants. Mr.Bhalerao, Mr. Gaikwad, Mr. Sham Patil and Mr. Swami, learned counsels forthe respondent – acquiring body and the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for the respondent – State of Maharashtra. All these matters aretaken up for final hearing with consent of the parties.2.This is group of 49 appeals emanating from the acquisitionproceedings of Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, Tq. Soigaon,14/28 FA 527 20.odtDist. Aurangabad. In all 17 appeals are filed by the acquiring body.Simultaneously, in those appeals cross appeals are filed by the claimants forenhancement of the compensation. Besides that the claimants have filed 15appeals for enhancement, in which the acquiring body has not preferred anyappeal against the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.Appellant – acquiring body has engaged different counsels for preferringappeals. The claimants are being represented by learned advocate Mr. Bide.3.The award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for thesake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the “S.L.A.O.”) on24.09.2012 is common. The price offered for lands and the trees iscommon. The claimants preferred different references, which were decidedby distinct judgments passed by the Reference Court, which are subjected tochallenge in the first appeals. The genesis for awarding rate is common.Hence I propose to decide all these appeals by this common judgment.4.Learned counsel Mr. Bide representing claimants has tendered onrecord four charts to comprehend the material particulars at a glance. Hehas also placed on record short paper book and compilation of relevantdocuments. Learned counsels appearing for the acquiring body haveaccepted the same. With the assistance of both the sides and relying on thecharts, I have examined the record and proceed to decide the first appeals.5.The possession of the lands of the claimants is taken on 21.02.2011.The joint measurement was conducted on 02.03.2011. The notificationU/Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for the sake of brevity andconvenience hereinafter referred as to the “L. A. Act”) was issued on27.05.2011. The notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was published in theGovernment Gazzette on 02.06.2011. The claimants made application toprivate valuer on 15.06.2011. He visited the site on 10.07.2011. Theexpert’s report is of 20.11.2011. The final notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A.15/28 FA 527 20.odtAct is published on 22.12.2011. A common award was passed by theS.L.A.O. on 24.09.2012.6.While preparing award S.L.A.O. considered various sale instances, outof which sale instance of land gut No. 129 is not found to be suitable. Thesale instances of land gut Nos. 105, 134 and 135 are considered to becompatible. Ultimately rate of Rs. 1,200/- per R for Group II i. e. dry land isfixed and approved. The valuation for the trees is determined on the basis ofjoint measurement.7.The claimants were aggrieved by the compensation offered by theS. L. A. O. and approached the Reference Court. The Reference Courtenhanced the rate from Rs. 1,200/- per R to Rs. 5,600/- per R for dry landconsidering the sale instance dated 13.01.2011 in land gut No. 129. Thevaluation of the trees is accepted to the extent of 80% following the law laiddown by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chinda Fakira Patil (D)Through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon reported in(2012) AIR SCW 270.8.The acquiring body did not lead oral evidence or any rebuttalevidence before the Reference Court. The claimants led oral evidenceincluding that of expert valuer. Being aggrieved by the judgment and awardpassed by the Reference Court, both the parties have approached this Courtby preferring appeals. In this backdrop I propose to assess the material onrecord for deciding the appeals.9.Following chart depicts the material particulars of 49 appeals at aglance.16/28 CHART NO. - III Sr. No.FAs filed by Acquiring Body FAs filed byOrig. ClaimantsLAR No.Date of Judgment& order Name of the Party Rates offered by SLAO per RDetermined by CourtIn Rupees Granted By Court In Rupees Now Claiming In Rupees with addition of 10% (For six months) 1.527/2020 (B)3594/2022215/201314/08/2018Chandrasing Parasram Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.10,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.92.525/2020(B)3531/2022256/201330/08/2017Devkabai Shivraj Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.3.528/2020(B)3592/2022214/201308/05/2017Mehetab Magan Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.134.529/2020(B)3626/2022219/201309/05/2017Shevantabai Bhagchand Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.155.530/2020(B)3529/2022211/201306/05/2017Ganesh Morsing Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.15 6.534/2020(B)3576/2022218/201321/07/2018Deva Harlal Rathod Died LRsRs.1,200/-Rs.2,400/-Rs.2,400/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.17 7.535/2020(B)3974/2022227/201307/09/2018Ashabai Ganesh Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.2,400/-Rs.2,400/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.17 8.3891/2019(P)3711/2022223/201307/03/2017Mamaraj Hansraj Rathod Died LRs Rs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.9. 3892/2019(P) 2852/2024221/201315/03/2018Shankar Damala Jadhav Died LRs Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.8 10.3893/2019 (P)3532/2022231/201313/03/2018Keshav Zipa Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.8 11.3894/2019(P)3624/2022228/201315/11/2017Ukha Harlal Rathod Died LRs Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.8 12.1734/2021(G)3530/2022208/201316/03/2018Vastalabai Mohan RathodRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.813.1735/2021(G) 2851/2024225/201310/11/2017Bhagchand Hansaraj ChavanRs.1,200/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.5,880/- Dry. 14.1736/2021(G)3534/2022213/201317/03/2018Rajmal Balu Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.815.1704/2025(S)3587/2022224/201318/06/2018Bhagchand Sandu Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.10,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 16.1705/2025(S)3954/2022209/201301/03/2018Pandit Gungu RathodRs.1,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.8 17.1706/2025(S)3533/2022210/201312/06/2017Sudam Sandu Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.15 18.No3583/2022238/201305/06/2017Dhirsing Mansing Pawar Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/- No appeal by Acquiring Body Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 19.No3955/2022234/201317/04/2017Ashok Mamaraj Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/- No appeal by Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 20.No3545/2022226/201302/05/2017Bhivsing Mansing PawarRs.1,200/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.7,500/- No appeal byAcquiring BodyRs.6,020/- Dry Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in AwardGut No.125 and Judgment para No.14 21.No3588/2022253/21324/04/2017Ganesh Babu ChavanRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/- No appeal by Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 22.No3620/2022254/201307/06/2017Madan Mohanlal RathodRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 23.No3965/2022236/201318/04/2017Dhana Manu@ Nanu Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.24.No3575/2022221/201315/03/2018Jawaharlal Shankar JadhavRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.8 25.No3621/2022252/201302/05/2016Phulsing Sandu Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 26.No3546/2022230/201302/05/2017Ramu Zipa Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.5600/ Rs.8,400/-Noappeal by Acquiring BodyRs.5,880/- Dry. Rs.11,760/-Irrigated Shown in Award Gut No.107 and Judgment para No.9 27.No3623/2022250/201302/05/2016Rajesh Ranglal ChavanRs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.28.No3956/2022233/201315/03/2017Santosh Sheshmal ChavanRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.929.No3869/2022255/201306/06/2017Ishwar Ramlal Chavan Died LRsRs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.30.No3580/2022229/201303/03/2017Dipak Saidas Rathod Died LRs Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,500/-Rs.8,400/- No appeal by Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated shown in Award and Judgment para No.931.No3619/2022220/201314/03/2018Mamaraj Balu Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Noappeal by Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated shown in Award and Judgment para No.832.No3586/2022212/201305/05/2017Madan Mohan Rathod and anotherRs.1,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.7,500/-Noappeal by Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated shown in Award and Judgment para No.1410.Both sides have rival claims for determination of the rate of the land and valuationof the trees. The claimants are also harping for treating their acquired lands in whichsource of water is recorded as irrigated land. Before dealing with the rival claims, it isnecessary to disclose that in 15 matters no appeals have been preferred by the acquiringbody against judgment of the Reference Court and the appeals are preferred only by theclaimants. The list of those appeals is as follows : 18.No3583/2022238/201305/06/2017Dhirsing Mansing Pawar Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/- No appealby Acquiring Body Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 19.No3955/2022234/201317/04/2017Ashok Mamaraj Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/- No appealby Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 20.No3545/2022226/201302/05/2017Bhivsing Mansing PawarRs.1,200/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.7,500/- No appeal by Acquiring BodyRs.6,020/- Dry Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award Gut No.125 and Judgment para No.14 21.No3588/2022253/21324/04/2017Ganesh Babu ChavanRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/- No appealby Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 22.No3620/2022254/201307/06/2017Madan Mohanlal RathodRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 23.No3965/2022236/201318/04/2017Dhana Manu@ Nanu Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.24.No3575/2022221/201315/03/2018Jawaharlal Shankar JadhavRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.8 25.No3621/2022252/201302/05/2016Phulsing Sandu Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.9 26.No3546/2022230/201302/05/2017Ramu Zipa Rathod Rs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.5600/ Rs.8,400/-No appeal by Acquiring BodyRs.5,880/- Dry. Rs.11,760/-Irrigated Shown in Award Gut No.107 and Judgment para No.9 27.No3623/2022250/201302/05/2016Rajesh Ranglal ChavanRs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.28.No3956/2022233/201315/03/2017Santosh Sheshmal ChavanRs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.11,760/- Irrigated Shown in Award and Judgment para No.929.No3869/2022255/201306/06/2017Ishwar Ramlal Chavan Died LRsRs.1,200/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,600/-Rs.5,880/- Dry.30.No3580/2022229/201303/03/2017Dipak Saidas Rathod Died LRs Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,500/-Rs.8,400/- No appealby Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated shown in Award and Judgment para No.931.No3619/2022220/201314/03/2018Mamaraj Balu Chavan Rs.1,200/-Rs.8,400/-Rs.7,500/-No appealby Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated shown in Award and Judgment para No.832.No3586/2022212/201305/05/2017Madan Mohan Rathod and anotherRs.1,200/-Rs.7,500/-Rs.7,500/-No appealby Acquiring BodyRs.11,760/- Irrigated shown in Award and Judgment para No.14 FA 527 20.odt11.Learned counsel Mr. Bide appearing for the claimants has canvassedfollowing submissions :I.The Reference Court committed error of jurisdiction in restricting therate to a particular figure, when claimants are entitled to have more rates.II.The evidence on record showing irrigation facility like well isoverlooked for treating the land as irrigated one and lands are treated eitherto be dry lands or seasonal irrigated lands. The pattern of crop is notdecisive factor.III.The claimants are entitled to have rate of Rs. 11,200/- per R, where awell is recorded to exist in the award.IV.The valuation of the trees is inadequate and unreasonable. In theabsence of any rebuttal evidence or the positive evidence by the acquiringbody valuers report ought to have been accepted.V.The claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation for thelands and the trees.12.Learned counsel Mr. A. M. Gaikwad appearing for the acquiring bodyin three appeals has canvassed following submissions.(i)The rate fixed by the Reference Court is unreasonable and patentlyillegal. The rate of the S.L.A.O. to the extent of Rs. 1,200/- per R is themodest rate.(ii)No material is placed on record to enhance the rate from 1,200/- perR to Rs. 5,600/- per R. The sale instances are not reliable.(iii)The valuation of the trees shown by the private expert is fictitious and21/28 FA 527 20.odtunreliable. His reports are after thought. No notice was given inspection ofthe land and the report was prepared after one year from visiting the site.(iv)The valuation of the expert in First Appeal No. 1734 of 2021disclosing fifteen (15) Bore (Berry) trees and five (05) Sitaphal (Custeredappeal) trees as well as valuation in First Appeal No. 1735 of 2021 showingtwo (02) Bore (Berry) and forty (40) Mosambi (Sweet Lemon) trees that tooin a dry land are vulnerable and improbable.(v)Expert’s reports and his evidence are concocted and should have beendiscarded by the Reference Court.13.Learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Bhalerao appearing for the acquiring bodywould adopt the submissions of learned advocate Mr. A. M. Gaikwad andadditionally it is submitted that the claimants are unable to produce 7/12extract to support the pattern of crop. It is submitted that a blind reliancecannot be placed on the observations of the Hon’ble Court in para No. 13 ofChinda Fakira’s (supra) judgment. In absence of any material on record itcannot be countenanced that the lands of the claimants should be treated tobe irrigated lands.14.Learned counsel Mr. Shyam Patil appearing for the acquiring bodyadopts the submissions referred above. It is submitted that in First AppealNo. 3891 of 1999 no well is shown and still it is claimed to be irrigated land,which cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that having restricted theclaim to a particular figure the claimants are estopped from claimingenhancement of the compensation.15.Learned counsel Mr. Swami appearing for the acquiring body alsoadopts the submissions referred above and he would add that the expertvaluer whose reports and oral evidence is adduced by the claimants was not22/28 FA 527 20.odtcompetent. He was not having requisite registration, his report and oralevidence are liable to be discarded in toto. 16.What emerges from above situation is that in 15 matters referredabove, the acquiring body is satisfied with the valuation of the land,valuation of the trees and findings of Reference Court. It is further informedby the learned counsel for the appellants – claimants Mr. Bide that theletters of (acquiescence) were issued and those are placed on record incompilation. The counsels for acquiring body do not dispute this fact. Ihave gone through the letters as well as judgments passed by the ReferenceCourt in those matters. Those are at Sr. Nos. 18 to 32 in the above referredtable. In similarly circumstanced matters the acquiring body finds itselfcontent and satisfied with the award of the Reference Court andsimultaneously prefers appeals in 17 matters. This conduct of the acquiringbody is discriminatory ex-facie. My attention is adverted to the law laiddown by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. TheChief Engineer and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312. Followingare the relevant extracts :“10.The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted toadopt an attitude of pick and choose.11.If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Courtin respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted toadopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such anattitude smacks of patent discrimination.12.In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow theappeals. The impugned judgment and order dated 20th January2015 passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of theReference Court dated 14th March 2012 is restored.17.The acquiring body has adopted pick and choose attitude. The aboveguidance of the Apex Court is a clog for them in their appeals challenging23/28 FA 527 20.odtthe judgment and award passed by the Reference Court which are 17 innumber. But independently I have conducted objective scrutiny for the ratesdetermined by the Reference Court for land, the trees and for deciding thenature of the lands. 18.I have perused impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court.Rate offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) of Rs. 1200/-per Are is enhanced by the reference Court relying on sale examplar dated13.01.2021. The claimant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence tocorroborate their claim. The reference Court specifically recorded that therate deducible is to the tune of Rs. 5600/- per Are for the dry land and Rs.10200/- per Are (sic) for irrigated land. The claimants did not press intoservice any better sale examplar. The reference Court’s finding to fix therate cannot be faulted.19. However, few of the claimants in the first appeals are not granted thesaid rate because they had restricted their claim to a particular figure. Oncehe is held to be entitled to the compensation, it should be awarded. It issettled law that notwithstanding the restriction of the claim by the claimanthe is entitled to receive more rate or compensation subject to payment ofdeficit court fees. The reference Court has committed error of jurisdiction inrefusing to award the compensation despite entitlement of the claimants. Iam fortified in my view by judgments rendered in Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D)by L.Rs. And others Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 625 andjudgment dated 19.06.2019 of the coordinate bench in the matter of VasantLaxmanrao Dalal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in F.A. No.604/2012.20.It reveals from record that in six appeals out of 49, the land acquiredis treated to be dry land. No source of water is shown in those lands in theaward. No evidence is led before the reference Court to demonstrate thatthose are irrigated or seasonally irrigated lands. I find that rate awardable24/28 FA 527 20.odtfor the dry land is Rs. 5600/-. Following are those six matters, whereinabove said rate and consequential compensation is payable :Sr. No. FAs filed by acquiring bodyFAs filed by originalclaimantsL.A.R. No.Date of JudgmentName of the partyRates offeredby SLAO per Arein RupeesGranted by Court in Rupees1)3891/20193711/2022223/201307/03/2017Mamaraj Hansraj Rathod died his L.Rs. 1200/- 5000/-2)525/20203531/2022256/201330/08/2017Devkabai Shivraj Chavan1200/-5600/-3)1735/20212851/2024225/201310/11/2017Bhagchand HansrajChavan1200/-5000/-4)No3965/2022236/201318/04/2017Dhana Manu @ Nanu Rathod1200/-Rs. 5600/- No appeal by Acquiring Body5)No3623/2022250/201302/05/2016Rajesh Ranglal Chavan1200/-Rs. 5600/- No appeal by Acquiring Body6)No3869/2022255/201306/06/2017Ishwar Ramlal Chavan died his L.Rs.1200/-Rs. 5600/- No appeal by Acquiring Body21.Parties have rival claims for the nature of the land except abovereferred lands, which are treated to be dry land. It is vehemently contendedby the claimants that rate of Rs. 11200/-per Are should have been awardedconsidering existence of well in the respective lands shown to have existedin land. The claimants have not produced any oral or documentary evidenceto corroborate that those are irrigated lands. It has been rightly recorded bythe reference Court that 7/12 extracts have not been produced. It might bethe choice of the claimants to take crop in their lands. There has to be somematerial to show as to what sort of crop has been taken. Mere existence of awell in the land would not make it permanently irrigated. I am of theconsidered view that wherever a well is shown to have existed in land, theclaimants are entitled to receive Rs. 8400/- per Are treating to be seasonallyirrigated lands. In none of the appeals any land is required to be treated as25/28 FA 527 20.odtpermanently irrigated land. (for this type of land also 10% addition is to bemade to the rate for computing the compensation).22.Its a case of the claimants that there were trees in the lands acquired.They had made application for valuation of the trees and horticultural plantsto Dr. Vishnu Kashinath Patil, a registered Valuer. He inspected the lands on10.07.2011 and submitted a report on 20.11.2012. Meantime award waspassed on 24.09.2012. In the joint measurement conducted on 02.03.2011the trees were found. Those are reflected in award. In the report submittedby the private valuer more trees are shown. The expert valuation reportwas placed before the reference Court. The expert valuer Dr. Vishnu Patilwas examined. The acquiring body even conducted the cross-examination.On the basis of above material on record, the reference Court accepted thevaluation report to the extent of 80% relying on the judgment of theSupreme Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. The SpecialLand Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon; (2011) 10 SCC 787.23.It cannot be said that the claim for valuation of trees is unfounded.Nothing useful is elucidated from the cross-examination of the expert valuer.Joint measurement disclosed existence of the trees. The Acquiring Body didnot lead any evidence to corroborate that the trees shown in the valuationreport are improbable or misconceived. Though the submissions of Mr. A.M.Gaikwad are attractive, which are made in respect of First Appeal No.1734/2021 and First Appeal No. 1735/2021 in the absence of any evidence,those cannot be approved. Mere alleging that no notice was issued beforeconducting inspection cannot dislodge the existence of the trees.24.In this regard I find that the course adopted by the reference Courtrelying on paragraph nos. 8 and 14 of the Supreme Court in the matter ofChindha Fakira Patil (supra) is proper, reasonable and sound. I do not findany case is made out to cause interference so far as the valuation of the treesawarded to the claimants.26/28 FA 527 20.odt25.My attention is adverted by learned counsel Mr. Swami to thejudgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Land Acquisition Officer,PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa Vs. Damodar Ramnath CamotimBambolkar; (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554. I have considered paragraph no. 12.The facts of the cited case are distinguishable. In that case, the registrationof the valuer, which was on record pertained to wealth tax purpose only. Inthe case at hand neither any objection was raised for competency of thevaluer nor any cross-examination was conducted to doubt the credibility ofthe witness. No evidence is led by the Acquiring Body. The expert’sevidence and his report cannot be discarded relying on the judgment.26.Learned counsel for the claimants Mr. Bide has adverted my attentionto the circular dated 27.12.1990, which mandates that the trees mentionedin the joint measurement are required to be counted for the valuation. Ihave already recorded that joint measurement supports the claimants caseand valuation of trees is rightly awarded.27.For the reasons stated above, I find that First Appeals filed by theAcquiring Body which are 17 in numbers are liable to be dismissed.28.First Appeals which are 32 in numbers comprising of cross appeals aswell as First Appeals preferred by the claimants are required to be partlyallowed. I, therefore, pass following order:(A)The claimants are entitled to receivecompensation at the rate of Rs. 5600/- per Are for dry landand Rs. 8400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land. Thecompensation shall be computed accordingly.(B)The lands in First Appeals mentioned in parano. 20 shall be treated as dry lands and all lands inremaining appeals shall be treated as seasonally irrigatedor combination of dry and seasonally irrigated lands as thecase may be.27/28 FA 527 20.odt(C)Rest of the Awards passed by the reference Courtin the impugned judgment and award shall standconfirmed. (D)Award be drawn accordingly in individual firstappeals.(E)Pending Civil Applications are disposed of. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/-28/28

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments