1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 887 OF 2010 The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Project, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad ...Appellant VERSUS Rukmanbai w/o Dattu Ugle & ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri S.P. Sonpawale, advocate for the appellant Respondent no.1 served, absent. Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 20.01.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 24.01.2011 ORAL ORDER :- 1 Heard Shri S.P. Sonpawale, advocate for the appellant and Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 although served is absent. 2 2 The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and award dated 31 st October, 2006, passed by the learned 5 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 378 of 2000, whereby the Reference of the respondent no.1 (original claimant) for enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land has been allowed. 3 The main attack of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the clause (6) of the operative part of the impugned judgment and award dated 31.10.2006 and same has been raised in Ground No.12 of the present appeal i.e. the payment of compensation already made in advance 80% prior to passing of the award and within one year from the date of award entire payment has been made, hence, directions in regard to payment of interest @ 9% and 15% does not arise, as directed in clause (6) of the operative part of the impugned judgment. 4 In the said context, Shri Sonpawale, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the fact that the amount of Rs. 3,600/- was already paid to the original claimant i.e. respondent no.1 herein by a cheque on 27.11.1995 and produced the consolidated voucher for payments made in accordance with the award statement 3 No. LQN/AR/14/95, dated 3.1.1996 on account of acquisition of land for Bor Dahegaon Medium Project at village Dahegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ collectively for identification, and submitted that the said aspect was not considered by the Trial Court and urged that the said amount be deducted from clause (6) of the operative part of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the appellant has no grievance in respect of the other part of the said impugned judgment dated 31.10.2006. 5 Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent no.2 submitted to the orders of the court. 6 Besides, learned counsel Shri Sonpawale appearing for the appellant also invited my attention to the aspect that another similar First Appeal No. 311 of 2010 along with connected appeals was decided by this court on the similar lines and on same footing on 21.1.2010 and prayed that present appeal also be allowed partly in the said terms. 7 In the light of the afore said facts, since the learned counsel for the appellant has produced the above referred record, 4 marked as ‘X’ for identification, which reflects that the acquiring body has paid the amount of Rs.3,600/- to respondent no.1 i.e. original claimant by cheque dated 27.11.1995, the said amount deserves to be deducted from the awarded amount of Rs.11,457/-, as stated in clause (6) of the operative part of the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2006 and learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the remaining part of the said judgment shall remain same. 8 In the result, present appeal is allowed partly in the afore said terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/fa887.10