Pandurang Laxman Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

25-WP-2476-18..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2476 OF 2018 PANDURANG LAXMAN PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.H.Panchal AGP for respondent/State : Shri S.K.Tambe ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : 26th March, 2018.

....

PER COURT :- 1] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31/10/2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Biloli in N.R.J.E. No. 15/2017 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a correction in the common judgment dated 4/3/2016 in L.A.R. No. 310/2015, has been rejected.

2] Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the L.A.R. Court enhancing the compensation dated 04/03/2016 clearly indicates from paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 that the petitioner would be entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 12,42,000/-. He has already been paid compensation of an amount of Rs. 4,51,665/-. By deducting

25-WP-2476-18..odt the compensation amount already paid, he would receive Rs. 7,90,335/-.

3] Grievance is that the direction in clause-4 of the operative part of the judgment dated 04/03/2016 will cause a double deduction.

4] In my view, as the learned AGP submits that this petition is based on an apprehension and is pre-mature, paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 are self-explanatory. 5] I find that the observations in paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 and clause-4 of the operative part of the judgment dated 04/03/2016 delivered by the Trial Court in L.A.R. No. 310/2015, are not self-contradictory. After deduction of the compensation already paid, the petitioner would get the remainder compensation.

6] This petition, being filed purely out of apprehension, is disposed of.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) shp/-