1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 2. FA/1238/2009 With CA/6624/2009 In FA/1238/2009 (Smt.Sheshabai w/o Sharanappa Aurade and others vs. Gurubasappa s/o Sadanandappa Aurade and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. M.V.Deshpande, Adv., for the appellant. Smt. S.G.Chincholkar, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:25-2-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, Counsel for the appellant and Smt. S.G.Chincholkar, Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. Other respondents are served, absent. Heard finally. 2. The controversy revolves to the property acquired in land acquisition proceedings and apportionment of the compensation amount which now has become Rs. 7,94,754/- with accrued interest in respect of land survey No. 29/1/2/ situate at Malajwadi, 2 taluka Mukhed, district Nanded. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kandhar, by his orders dt.15.4.2009, in Miscellaneous (RJE) No.17/2006, did not entertain claim of present appellant Sheshabai and others to be entitled to receive the compensation referred above. Several contentions were raised by Mr. Deshpande, Counsel, about entitlement of appellant to stake claim as the appellant is daughter-in-law of Mahadappa. It was canvassed, Mahadappa expired in May, 1968. This has been refuted by Smt.Chincholkar, Counsel, by pointing out that Mahadappa expired, indeed, on 30th May, 1982. There is a certificate issued by Sarpanch of the village Gram Panchayat. The controversy again relates to exchange of the property based on mutation entries. Mr. Deshpande, Counsel, pointed out there was no regular exchange deed produced to stake claim over the property which was subject of acquisition. 3. During the course of 3 submission Mr.Deshpande realized a difficulty, the appellants have to file a substantial suit staking claim in all the properties by getting them partitioned by the process of the Court. He urged, if the Court could direct stay to apportionment of the amount referred above till such process, the appellant will take appropriate steps in her contemplated proceedings of partition. 4. Smt.Chincholkar, learned Counsel, denies such eventualities as, according to her, the judgment of the learned Judge under challenge is well reasoned, the entitlement of the respondent is considered in the legal frame, supported with the documents. She urged, the claimant/owner of the property is deprived to enjoy fruits of compensation. 5. Both the sides, ultimately, agree that this Court need not to advert on merits/ entitlement of the appellant to claim 4 compensation amount, leaving such issue to be adjudicated upon in the future action proposed by appellant. I do not see any abridgment of rights in such exercise as sought by them. 6. A care can be taken in respect of enjoying the fruits of the amount of compensation by the respondent. Hence, order: ORDER (a) The appeal is disposed of. The respondent Gurubasappa s/o Sadanandappa Aurade, resident of Marajwadi, Taluka Mukhed, to receive Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.four lacs) out of the compensation amount in respect of land survey No.29/1/2, situate at Marajwadi, taluka Mukhed, dist. Nanded, from the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kandhar. The balance amount to be invested by the learned Judge in a Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. (b) If the appellant does not take any action up to 17th June, 2010, the respondent Gurubasappa shall 5 be entitled to receive the residue ( the amount deposited in Nationalized Bank) as directed in clause No.a with accrued interest thereon, without any demur. With this, the appeal disposed of. No costs. Civil Applications disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1238-09fa