1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 3257/2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO: 197/2008 (State of Maharashtra and others vs. Ashok Pandurang Mahalle) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. Fulzele, Adv. for appellants Mr A B Dandekar Adv.for Respondent CORAM: A .M.KHANWILKAR & R.C.CHAVAN,JJ. DATED: 28th April, 2008. *** 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. We find merits in the stand taken on behalf of the State that the applicant is entitled only for compensation towards land cost. The applicant cannot claim compensation for land as well as trees, as has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In support of the submission, reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 106 in the case of State of Haryana vs. Guyrucharan Singh and another. 3. To get over this position, counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the discussion in Paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein the Court below has adverted to two reported decisions of our High Court. As aforesaid, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana (supra ) is directly on the point. We are bound by the said 2 decision. Applying the principle stated in the reported decision of the Apex Court, it would necessarily follow that the applicant is not entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs. 36 lakhs awarded in respect of 800 orange trees. The applicant would be entitled for compensation towards land cost only to the extent of Rs. 3,97,600/- As against this, the applicant has already received a sum of Rs. 10,50,059/-. Thus understood, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the applicant to permit the applicant to withdraw the amount already deposited by the appellant. Instead, while rejecting this application, we direct the Registry to invest the amount in appropriate fixed deposit scheme so as to derive best interest returns, which investment will be kept alive till the disposal of the Appeal. 4. Application disposed of in above terms. JUDGE JUDGE share