VITHALRAO NAGORAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellants have impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 1992 whereby suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for recovery of compensation amount came to be dismissed.

(2.) Facts are that land bearing Gat No. 10 admeasuring 3.67 HR, Gat No. 13 admeasuring 7.73 HR and Gat No. 82 admeasuring 3.52 HR situated at village Chincholi, Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal was acquired by the State Government for Arunawati Project. Award came to be passed on 4.3.1989 in Land Acquisition Case No. 4/65/1984-85 of village Chincholi by which compensation amount was fixed at Rs. 3,59,174/-. It appears that at the time of disbursement of amount of compensation, as a result of amicable settlement between original appellant/plaintiff Vithalrao and defendant/respondent no.4 Sumitrabai (his legally wedded wife), 40 per cent in the sum of Rs. 1,47,670/- was paid to appellant Vithalrao while 60 per cent amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,21,504/- was paid to defendant/respondent no.4 Sumitrabai. Appellant/original plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,21,504/- against respondents 1 to 3 and respondent no.4 jointly and severally together with interest thereon at Rs. 1.50 p.c.p.m. as according to the plaintiff, amount of Rs. 2,21,504/- or for that matter, no amount at all should have been paid to defendant no. 4 Sumitrabai. After considering the evidence led before it, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have ordered payment of any amount muchless 60% amount of compensation to respondent no.4 Sumitrabai as the land which was acquired was exclusively belonging to appellant Vithalrao. He contends that learned trial Court has answered issues as to the ownership of appellant over suit land and its acquisition by the Government in the affirmative and, therefore, it ought to have been held that entire amount of compensation should have been diverted to the appellant. That having not been done, according to learned counsel for appellant, the impugned judgment and decree is rendered erroneous and appeal needs to be allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that defendant no.4 was not a protected tenant and finding to that effect given by the trial Court is wrong, erroneous and is liable to be set aside.