KALYAN MADGAOCAR Vs. DATTARAM SHIVA HARMALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above First Appeals take exception to the Judgment and Award of the Reference Court dated 28.7.2003 in Land Acquisition Case No. 90/1994. By the said Judgment and Award the said reference under Section 30 was partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquired lands was directed to be apportioned equally between the Applicant on one side and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on the other in the proportion of 50 : 50.

(2.) The subject matter of the acquisition in question was land bearing survey No. 249/2 Part in an area of 15075 square metres and 250 Part in an area of 5 square metres for the purpose of construction of left bank main canal for Tillari Irrigation Project. In view of the rival claims between the parties, the dispute was referred to the District Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment.

(3.) The said reference came to be numbered as LAC No. 94/2004. It was the case of the Respondent i.e. Appellant in First Appeal No. 284/03 that the Applicant i.e. the Respondent No. 1 in the companion Appeal No. 115 of 2004 is the owner of the property 249/2 and 250/0 situated at Siolilm of which she was the tenant and paying rent to the Applicant. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in the said reference also claimed to be tenants but their cases are not relevant for the purpose of the instant First Appeals. The Appellant in First Appeal No. 115/2004 i.e. Dattaram Shiva Harmalkar filed his written statement in the said reference application. It is the case of the said Dattaram Shiva Harmalkar in the said written statement that he was co-tenant of the property in question and was entitled to 1/4th share in the entire compensation. The Respondent No. 1 i.e. Smt. Kalyan Madgaonkar filed a detailed written statement in the said application. She has averred in para 10 of the written statement that her claim that she is tenant of the acquired land is also supported by the owner i.e. the Applicant Vivian Niwas Charitable Society. In para 7 of the written statement she has claimed that the compensation awarded be apportioned in the ratio 50% to the Applicant Vivian Niwas Charitable Society and 50% to her on the basis that she is a tenant and the claim put forth by the other Respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should be dismissed.