(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4350 OF 1999 Bhagwan s/o. Sambhaji Shinde, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shiradhon, Post Hasta Pokhri, Taluka : Ambad, District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Secretary, Planning Division, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. The Collector, Jalna. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 6. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. Pravin Wagh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate, holding for Mr. D.N. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondent nos.5 and 6. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner is an owner of the land, bearing Gut No. 126, at village Shiradhon (Taluka : Ambad, District : Jalna), admeasuring 1 Hectare 11 Are. The petitioner's land to the extent of 9 Are was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction of percolation tank. The petitioner was paid compensation for the same. 2. The work of the percolation tank was undertaken in the year 1983-84. The same was left incomplete. As the work of the percolation tank was not completed, the water flowed in the land of the petitioner, thereby causing loss and damage to the crops of the petitioner. Because of the said flow of water, on (3) account of incomplete work of the percolation tank, the petitioner could not use and enjoy the said land. 3. Mr. Pravin Wagh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the fact, that the land of the petitioner was affected because of the flow of water from the percolation tank, on account of its incomplete work, cannot be disputed by the respondents. The respondents had carried out the inspection. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambad, had also submitted his report and for the year 1993-94, the loss was assessed at Rs. 23,642/-. Thereafter, even a joint inspection of the said land was undertaken by the Tahsildar, Ambad and Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. After inspection, they have assessed the loss caused to the petitioner's crop, from the year 1984-85 to the year 1994-95, at Rs. 96,000/-. The petitioner had, time and again, made representations. The same were not considered by the Collector, on the ground that there is no scheme applicable for payment of compensation / damages on account of such losses. According to the Collector, the said scheme was only in respect of loss caused due to natural calamity. 4. Mr. N.B. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, supported the order of the Collector and contended, that as there was no scheme wherein (4) any compensation is to be paid, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount of compensation. 5. We have gone through the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and also, the order passed by the Collector, wherein the Collector has also recorded the assessment of the Tahsildar and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, and according to the said order also, the loss sustained by the petitioner is assessed at Rs. 96,000/-. The Collector, Jalna, has also not disputed the said report and the factum of the loss caused to the petitioner, but only on the ground, that no scheme is available by virtue of which compensation can be paid, has denied the relief. 6. It is a settled position of law, that every action of the State has to be just, fair and reasonable. When it is not at all disputed, that the loss that is caused to the petitioner because of the damage to the crops in all these years, is to tune of Rs. 96,000/-, then in such circumstances, there is no reason for the State to deny the same to the petitioner. There are absolutely no disputed questions of fact, as far as quantum of loss is concerned and it is also not disputed by the respondents, that the loss caused to the petitioner is due to the flow of water from the percolation tank due to its incomplete work and in March 1995 only, the said work was completed. The petitioner has been (5) deprived of the use and enjoyment of his property as a legitimate owner. In such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled for the said amount of compensation. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of ABL International Ltd and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others ((2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 553). 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent / State is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 96,000/- [Rupees ninety six only] to the petitioner, towards damage caused to the land of the petitioner due to flow of water from percolation tank. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 % per annum, from the date of filing this petition i.e. 4th August 1999, till the actual payment. The respondent / State shall pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. 8. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE bgp/4350wp