Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DAILYLAW 2720 (BOM)

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER v. GAJANAN PANJABRAO RAUT AND 2 OTHERS

FA/691/2013 · 2026-07-22

Shri Sushil M Ghodeswar

body2013

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

203-J-FA-691-13 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO.691 OF 2013 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Taq & Dist. Yavatmal … Appellant -vs- 1. Gajanan Panjabrao Raut Aged : Major, Occ.- Agriculturist, R/o Dehni, Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal, 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bembla Project, Yavatmal … Respondents Shri Kurani, Advocate h/f Shri Amol B. Patil, Advocate for appellant. Respondent No.1 served. Shri H. D. Dubey, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATED : 22nd July, 2026 Oral Judgment : Heard Shri Kurani, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H. D. Dubey, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. None appears for respondent No.1/Claimant, though served. 2026:BHC-NAG:9502 203-J-FA-691-13 2/2 2. The appellant-Corporation is challenging the judgment and order dated 13/08/2010 passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No.411/2005 whereby claimants are held to be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.450/- per sq. meter for open plot area admeasuring 56.36 sq. meter and Rs.1400/- per sq. meter for constructed area admeasuring 33.84 sq. meter for plot No.73 from village Dehani. 3. At the outset, Shri Kurani, learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation submitted that this Court while disposing of First Appeal No.298/2018 (Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Thr. Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Division, Yavatmal vs. Gajanan Sadashiv Kawle and ors.) has maintained rate of enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court. He further submits that as there is no cross-objection filed by the respondents, the instant appeal be disposed of by maintaining the rates granted by the Reference Court. 4. In view of aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed by maintaining the judgment and order dated 13/08/2010 passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No.411/2005. No order as to costs. (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) Asmita