HIRALAL KONDAJI KUKLARE DIED THR LRS LAXMAN HIRALAL KUKLAREversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER JAYAKWADI PROJECT, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:33222
                                                                  FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                                1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                              22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2017

          Jagannath Tukaram Karhale                    … Appellants
          Age – 58 years, Occu.: Agri.,
          R/o. Siregaon, Tal. Gangapur,
          Dist. Aurangabad.

                VERSUS

          1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
             Jayakwadi Project, Aurangabad

          2. The Executive Engineer,
             Minor Irrigation Division No.1
             Aurangabad.                               … Respondents
                                              ......

                                            AND
                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2017

          Bhaginath Ramrao Karhale                     … Appellants
          Age – 65 years, Occu.: Agri.,
          R/o. Siregaon, Tal. Gangapur,
          Dist. Aurangabad.

                VERSUS

          1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
             Jayakwadi Project, Aurangabad

          2. The Executive Engineer,
             Minor Irrigation Division No.1
             Aurangabad.                               … Respondents
                                              ......

                              23 FIRST APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2017

          Hiralala Kondaji Kuklare (Died)
          Through L.Rs. Laxman Hiralal Kuklare
          Bhaginath Ramrao Karhale                      … Appellant
          Age – 40 years, Occu.: Agri.,
          R/o. Siregaon, Tal. Gangapur,
          Dist. Aurangabad.
                                                                FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                       2


      VERSUS

1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
   Jayakwadi Project, Aurangabad

2. The Executive Engineer,
   Minor Irrigation Division No.1
   Aurangabad.                                      … Respondents

                                     ......
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Appellants in all FAs
Mr. B.A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent No.1-State in FA/959/2017 & FA/969/2017
Ms. A.S.Mantri, AGP for Respondent No.1-State in FA/971/2017
Mr. Sudhir Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                     ......

                               CORAM          : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                               DATE           : 27 JULY, 2026
JUDGMENT :

1.     Admit.


2.     Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1995, and with

the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, these

appeals are heard finally.


3.     By these appeals, the appellants-original claimants have challenged

the respective Judgments and Awards passed by the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Vaijapur in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.1568 of 2010,

1429 of 2010 and 1559 of 2010, whereby the learned Reference Court

partly allowed the references preferred under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation awarded by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer.
                                                              FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                     3


4.     The lands admeasuring 1 Hectare 38 R from Gat No.127, 33 R from

Gat No.136/1 and 3 Hectares 34 R from Gat No.138, situated at village

Siregaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad, belonging to the respective

appellants-claimants, came to be acquired for the purpose of Shillegaon

Minor Irrigation Tank at villages Manjarpur, Deoli and Siregaon, Taluka

Gangapur, District Aurangabad. The notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 16.11.1995. Thereafter, the Special

Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award under Section 11 of the said Act

on 12.08.1999, determining the market value of the acquired lands at the

rate of Rs.410/- to Rs.490/- per R for dry land. Being dissatisfied with the

quantum    of   compensation    awarded,    the   claimants   accepted        the

compensation under protest and sought references under Section 18 of the

Act.


5.     By the impugned Judgments and Awards, the learned Reference

Court partly enhanced the compensation. However, in Land Acquisition

Reference No.1568 of 2010, no compensation was awarded for the acquired

land by treating the same as deferred land. In Land Acquisition Reference

No.1429 of 2010, compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per R was awarded

only in respect of 13 R of irrigated land, whereas the remaining 20 R was

treated as deferred land and no compensation was awarded therefor.

Similarly, in Land Acquisition Reference No.1559 of 2010, compensation at

the rate of Rs.1,500/- per R was awarded only in respect of 98 R of irrigated
                                                              FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                     4

land, while the remaining 2 Hectares 32 R was treated as deferred land and

no compensation was awarded therefor. In Land Acquisition Reference

Nos.1568 of 2010 and 1429 of 2010, the learned Reference Court also

awarded compensation towards the fruit-bearing trees, which, according to

the claimants, is grossly inadequate. In Land Acquisition Reference No.1559

of 2010, however, no compensation was awarded towards the fruit-bearing

trees on the ground that no valuation report was produced on record. Being

aggrieved thereby, the claimants have preferred the present appeals seeking

enhancement of compensation for the acquired lands as well as the fruit-

bearing trees.


6.     Learned counsel Mr. Ajeet B. Kale appearing for the appellants

submitted that the learned Reference Court committed a manifest error in

treating the entire acquired land in First Appeal No.959 of 2017 as deferred

land merely because fruit-bearing trees existed thereon. According to him,

the existence of fruit-bearing trees, by itself, does not obliterate the

independent market value of the agricultural land. He submitted that the

acquired land admeasuring 1 Hectare 38 R continued to possess substantial

agricultural potential and, therefore, the claimant was entitled to separate

compensation for the land in addition to the compensation awarded towards

the standing fruit-bearing trees.


7.     Insofar as First Appeal No.969 of 2017 is concerned, learned counsel

submitted that out of the land acquired from Gat No.136/1, the learned
                                                                FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                      5

Reference Court awarded compensation only in respect of 13 R of irrigated

land and treated the remaining 20 R as deferred land, thereby denying any

compensation for the said portion. According to him, such classification is

not supported by the evidence on record and has resulted in denial of just

compensation. He submitted that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of

the market value awarded for the said 13 R of irrigated land on the basis of

the comparable awards relied upon by the appellants.


8.     Insofar as First Appeal No.971 of 2017 is concerned, learned counsel

fairly submitted that no independent valuation report in respect of the fruit-

bearing trees was produced before the learned Reference Court.

Nevertheless, he contended that the existence and number of the fruit-

bearing trees stood duly established from the Award passed by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer and the contemporaneous revenue record.

According to him, merely because an independent valuation report was not

produced, the claimant could not have been deprived of reasonable

compensation for the standing fruit-bearing trees. He submitted that, in any

event, the claimant is entitled to enhancement of the market value awarded

for the 98 R of irrigated land on the basis of the comparable awards

rendered in respect of acquisition for the very same project.


9.     Learned counsel further submitted that the valuation report (Exhibit-

14) prepared by the valuer was duly proved through the evidence of CW-2.

The witness entered the witness box, proved the inspection carried out by
                                                                FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                      6

him, explained the basis of valuation and was subjected to cross-

examination. He, therefore, submitted that once the valuation report stood

duly proved in accordance with law, the learned Reference Court rightly

relied upon the same while determining compensation for the fruit-bearing

trees. According to the learned counsel, however, the deductions made by

the learned Reference Court from the valuation assessed by the expert are

wholly arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing

determination of compensation for fruit-bearing trees.


10.    Placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Chindha Fakira

Patil (Dead) through L.Rs. versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2011)

10 SCC 787, learned counsel submitted that where the valuation report is

duly proved by examining its author and no equally cogent evidence is

adduced by the acquiring body in rebuttal, the Court ought to accept the

expert opinion unless the valuation is shown to be inherently erroneous. He,

therefore, submitted that the appellants are entitled to compensation for the

fruit-bearing trees substantially in accordance with the valuation report.


11.    Learned counsel further invited the attention of this Court to the

Judgments and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court in Land

Acquisition Reference Nos.1565 of 2010 and 1300 of 2010, arising out of

the acquisition for the very same Shillegaon Minor Irrigation Project.

According to him, the lands involved in those references were situated in the

same village and were acquired for the same public purpose. The learned
                                                              FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                     7

Reference Court, in those matters, determined the market value of the

acquired lands at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per R. It was, therefore, submitted

that the present appellants are also entitled to similar compensation,

particularly when the nature, location and potentiality of the acquired lands

are comparable.


12.    Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgments

and Awards deserve to be modified by awarding appropriate market value

for the acquired lands in consonance with the comparable awards relating to

the same acquisition project and by suitably enhancing the compensation

payable towards the fruit-bearing trees together with all statutory benefits

under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.


13.    Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Bhalerao appearing for the

acquiring body, assisted by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders

appearing for the State, supported the impugned Judgments and Awards. He

submitted that the learned Reference Court has properly appreciated the

oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has awarded just

and reasonable compensation. According to him, no case for further

enhancement is made out.


14.    Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Reference Court

has rightly placed reliance upon the Judgment and Award passed in Land

Acquisition Reference No.1425 of 2010, arising out of the acquisition of
                                                              FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                      8

lands from the same village for the very same project. He submitted that the

dispute in the said reference came to be amicably resolved before the Lok

Nyayalaya, wherein compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per R for

irrigated land was accepted by the parties. According to him, the learned

Reference Court was justified in adopting the said rate while determining

the market value in the present references.


15.    Insofar as the compensation awarded towards the fruit-bearing trees

is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the valuation report (Exhibit-

14) cannot be accepted as a reliable piece of evidence. According to him, the

author of the report has neither established that he is a Government-

approved or registered valuer nor produced any material indicating the basis

on which the valuation has been arrived at. Though the report refers to the

wholesale market rates prevailing in the Agricultural Produce Market

Committee, Aurangabad, no documentary evidence in support thereof has

been placed on record. He further submitted that the inspection of the

acquired lands was carried out by the valuer on 15.01.1997, after possession

of the lands had already been taken pursuant to the acquisition proceedings.

According to the learned counsel, the valuation made on the basis of such

inspection cannot safely be relied upon for determining the compensation

payable under the Act.


16.    Learned counsel further submitted that the reliance placed by the

appellants upon the awards passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.1565
                                                              FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                     9

of 2010 and 1300 of 2010 is wholly misconceived. According to him, the

notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in those

acquisitions were published on different dates and, therefore, the said

awards cannot constitute a safe guide for determining the market value in

the present cases. He submitted that the learned Reference Court has

appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and that the impugned

Judgments and Awards do not warrant any interference.


17.    I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the respective parties. With their able assistance, I

have carefully gone through the pleadings, the oral and documentary

evidence adduced before the Reference Court, the impugned Judgments and

Awards, as well as the Record and Proceedings.


18.    There is no dispute that the lands involved in all these appeals were

acquired for the construction of the Shillegaon Minor Irrigation Project

pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 on 16.11.1995. The controversy essentially revolves around the

adequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court

towards the acquired lands and the fruit-bearing trees standing thereon.


19.    Insofar as the claim for enhancement of compensation for the

acquired lands is concerned, the principal contention advanced on behalf of

the appellants is that the awards subsequently passed in Land Acquisition
                                                               FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                     10

Reference Nos.1565 of 2010 and 1300 of 2010, though the lands involved

therein were acquired for the very same irrigation project and are situated in

the same village. According to the appellants, those awards constitute the

best available evidence for determining the prevailing market value of the

acquired lands. It is true that an award passed in another land acquisition

reference does not operate as a binding precedent for determining the

market value in every subsequent case. Nevertheless, where the lands are

acquired for the same public purpose, are situated in the same village or

adjoining villages, possess comparable advantages and are acquired within a

reasonably proximate period, such awards undoubtedly furnish valuable

evidence and provide useful guidance in determining the fair market value.


20.    The record reveals that the lands involved in Land Acquisition

Reference Nos.1565 of 2010 and 1300 of 2010 were also acquired for the

construction of the Shillegaon Minor Irrigation Project. The respondents

have not produced any material to demonstrate that the lands involved in

the present references materially differ from those lands with regard to their

quality, fertility, location or potentiality. Mere difference in the date of

publication of the notification under Section 4, by itself, would not render

such awards wholly irrelevant, particularly when the acquisition pertains to

the same project and the lands are otherwise comparable.


21.    Equally, the reliance placed by the learned Reference Court upon the

settlement arrived at in Land Acquisition Reference No.1425 of 2010 before
                                                              FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                    11

the Lok Nyayalaya cannot be regarded as conclusive for determining the

market value of the acquired lands in the present references. A compromise

arrived at between the parties represents a consensual settlement and not an

adjudication on merits after appreciation of evidence. Such a settlement may

constitute one of the relevant circumstances, but it cannot prevail over a

reasoned judicial determination rendered in respect of comparable lands

acquired for the same public purpose.


22.    In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the awards relied upon by the appellants deserve due consideration

while determining the market value of the acquired lands.


23.    The next issue which arises for consideration pertains to the

compensation awarded towards the fruit-bearing trees standing on the

acquired lands. The appellants contend that the learned Reference Court

ought to have accepted the valuation report (Exhibit-14) in its entirety and

awarded compensation accordingly. The respondents, on the other hand,

contend that the valuation report is unreliable and does not furnish a safe

basis for determination of compensation.


24.    Insofar as First Appeal No.959 of 2017 is concerned, the acquired

land bearing Gat No.127, admeasuring 1 Hectare 38 R, admittedly

contained a large number of fruit-bearing trees. The Award passed by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer records the existence of 133 Guava trees,
                                                               FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                     12

300 Sweet Lemon trees, 5 Bor trees and 2 Mango trees, aggregating to 440

fruit-bearing trees. Thus, the existence and number of the fruit-bearing trees

are not in dispute.


25.    The grievance of the appellants is that though the learned Reference

Court awarded compensation towards the fruit-bearing trees, it treated the

entire acquired land as deferred land and consequently declined to award

separate compensation for the land. Having carefully considered the

evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by

the learned Reference Court. The evidence clearly indicates that the

acquired land was substantially occupied by fruit-bearing trees. The

appellants have failed to adduce any cogent evidence to establish that any

identifiable portion of the acquired land retained an independent

agricultural character so as to warrant separate compensation for the land in

addition to the compensation awarded towards the fruit-bearing trees. The

finding recorded by the learned Reference Court in this regard, therefore,

warrants no interference.


26.    The principal question, therefore, is whether the valuation report

(Exhibit-14) furnishes a reliable basis for awarding further compensation

towards the fruit-bearing trees. The evidence of CW-2, who deposed that he

had inspected the acquired lands and assessed the value of the fruit-bearing

trees. During his cross-examination, however, the witness admitted that he

had not produced any material to establish that he was a Government-
                                                               FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                        13

approved or registered valuer. Though he stated that the valuation was

prepared on the basis of the wholesale market rates prevailing in the

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Aurangabad, no documentary

evidence in support of such market rates has been produced on record along

with the report by the claimants before the learned Reference Court.


27.    It is also an admitted position that the inspection was carried out on

15.01.1997, whereas possession of the acquired lands had already been

taken on 16.11.1995 pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. Consequently,

the valuation is founded upon an inspection carried out subsequent to the

relevant date for determination of compensation. In the absence of

contemporaneous material establishing the age, condition and yield of the

fruit-bearing trees as on the date of acquisition, the valuation report cannot

be accepted without careful scrutiny.


28.    Apart from the calculation sheets appended to the valuation report,

no material has been placed on record to indicate the prevailing wholesale

market rates adopted by the valuer, the annual yield of the fruit-bearing

trees or the recognized method employed while assessing their value. In

these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that Exhibit-14,

by itself, cannot constitute a safe basis for awarding further enhancement of

compensation.
                                                                 FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                      14

29.    Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decision

in Chindha Fakira Patil (supra). There can be no dispute with the legal

principle enunciated therein. However, the applicability of a judicial

precedent necessarily depends upon the facts of each case. In the said

decision, the valuation report was found to be reliable and was duly

supported by the evidence on record. In the present case, however, the

valuation report suffers from the deficiencies noticed hereinabove.


30.    The Valuer was admittedly not registered as Government valuer.

There was no any other record to show that he was having authority to

prepare such report or to act as a Government recognized valuer. The

learned Reference Court has not accepted the valuation as claimed by the

appellants but has scrutinized the evidence on record and awarded

compensation which, in its considered opinion, was just and reasonable. The

acquiring body has also failed to adduce any independent evidence to

demonstrate that the compensation so awarded is excessive. Consequently,

no case is made out for interference with the compensation awarded by the

learned Reference Court towards the fruit-bearing trees.


31.    In fact, insofar as the number and valuation of the fruit-bearing trees

are concerned, this Court finds that the valuation of the trees appears to be

on the higher side. In that regard, this Court has carefully perused the copies

of the 7/12 extracts. Though in some cases the existence of a well is

reflected therein, it is difficult to believe that such a large number of fruit-
                                                              FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                       15

bearing trees existed on the acquired lands. The evidence on record creates

serious doubt about the correctness of the number of trees shown in the

acquired lands. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence

substantiating the valuation claimed by the appellants, this Court is not

inclined to grant any further enhancement of compensation towards the

fruit-bearing trees in First Appeal Nos.969 of 2017 and 971 of 2017. In First

Appeal No.971 of 2017, admittedly no valuation report was produced before

the learned Reference Court. The appellants have failed to place any cogent

and legally admissible evidence so as to warrant further enhancement. This

Court finds that the learned Reference Court has appreciated the oral and

documentary evidence on record and awarded compensation which is just

and reasonable. Consequently, no further enhancement of compensation

towards the fruit-bearing trees is warranted.


32.    Accordingly, insofar as First Appeal No.959 of 2017 is concerned, I

am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish any

ground warranting further enhancement either towards the acquired land or

towards the fruit-bearing trees. The findings recorded by the learned

Reference Court on both these aspects are based upon a proper appreciation

of the oral and documentary evidence on record and do not warrant

interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.


33.    The position, however, stands on a different footing in First Appeal

Nos.969 of 2017 and 971 of 2017. As discussed hereinabove, the
                                                                   FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                        16

comparable awards relied upon by the appellants furnish a safe guide for

determination of the market value of the irrigated lands for which

compensation has already been awarded by the learned Reference Court.

The respondents have failed to bring on record any distinguishing feature

with regard to the nature, quality, fertility, location or potentiality of the said

lands so as to justify awarding compensation at a lower rate.


34.     As regards the judgments rendered in Land Acquisition Reference

Nos. 1565 of 2010 and 1300 of 2010, it is not in dispute that the lands

involved therein as well as the lands of the present appellants were acquired

pursuant to the different notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act for the very same public purpose, namely, construction of the

Shillegaon Minor Irrigation Project. The acquired lands are situated in the

adjoining villages, including village Siregaon, and form part of the same

acquisition undertaken for the said irrigation project. Once the market value

of agricultural lands acquired for the same project has been determined by

the learned Reference Court, similarly situated agriculturists cannot

ordinarily be denied the benefit of the same rate merely because their lands

are situated in different villages covered by the different notifications. Even

assuming that certain acquired lands possessed non-agricultural potentiality

or were abutting a National Highway or a State Highway and, therefore,

were capable of fetching higher compensation, such special advantages

would justify awarding a higher market value only in respect of those lands.
                                                                  FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                       17

However, in the case of purely agricultural lands, the determination of

market value essentially depends upon the nature of the land, namely,

whether it is dry, semi-irrigated or irrigated, having regard to the availability

of a source of water and the crop pattern. Therefore, once the learned

Reference Court has determined the market value of irrigated agricultural

lands at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per R in the earlier Land Acquisition

Reference Nos.1565 of 2010 and 1300 of 2010 arising out of the very same

acquisition, the present appellants, whose lands are similarly situated and

acquired for the same project, are also entitled to receive compensation at

the said rate.


35.     Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

comparable awards produced by the appellants and the attendant facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

appellant in First Appeal No.969 of 2017 is entitled to compensation at the

rate of Rs.3,500/- per R, instead of Rs.1,500/- per R, in respect of 13 R of

irrigated land comprised in Gat No.136/1. Likewise, the appellant in First

Appeal No.971 of 2017 is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.3,500/-

per R, instead of Rs.1,500/- per R, in respect of 98 R of irrigated land

comprised in Gat No.138. Save and except the aforesaid enhancement in the

rate of compensation, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court,

including those relating to the deferred land and the compensation awarded

towards the fruit-bearing trees, do not call for any interference.
                                                            FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                    18

36.    Thus, First Appeal No.959 of 2017 deserves to be dismissed, whereas

First Appeal Nos.969 of 2017 and 971 of 2017 deserve to be partly allowed

only to the extent of enhancement of the market value of 13 R and 98 R of

irrigated land, respectively. The impugned Judgments and Awards otherwise

warrant no interference. Hence, the following order:


                                 ORDER


I.     First Appeal No.959 of 2017 stands dismissed.


II.    First Appeal Nos.969 of 2017 and 971 of 2017 are partly allowed.


III.   The Judgments and Awards dated 19.01.2013 and 23.01.2013

passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaijapur, in Land

Acquisition Reference Nos.1429 of 2010 and 1559 of 2010 are modified to

the following extent:


IV.    The appellant–claimant in First Appeal No.969 of 2017 (Land

Acquisition Reference No.1429 of 2010) shall be entitled to compensation

for the acquired land bearing Gat No.136/1, admeasuring 13 R, situated at

village Siregaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad, at the rate of

Rs.3,500/- per R.


V.     The appellant–claimant in First Appeal No.971 of 2017 (Land

Acquisition Reference No.1559 of 2010) shall be entitled to compensation

for the acquired land bearing Gat No.138, admeasuring 98 R, situated at
                                                                    FA-959-17 (+2) Jt..odt
                                         19

village Siregaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad, at the rate of

Rs.3,500/- per R.


VI.        The appellants in First Appeal Nos.969 of 2017 and 971 of 2017

shall be entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation

under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with

law.


VII.       The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section

34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the enhanced compensation,

strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court

in State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.


VIII.      The claimants shall pay the requisite deficit court fees, if any, on the

enhanced compensation.


IX.        Save and except the modifications directed hereinabove, the

impugned Judgments and Awards shall remain unaltered.


X.         The modified Awards be drawn accordingly.


XI.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE

S P Rane