Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOs.7222-7223     OF     2012   [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15029-15030 of 2007]

Executive Engineer LVP Division, Wardha .... Appellant

Versus

Maroti Bapurao Auchat & Others              .... Respondent(s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

K.S.     Radhakrishnan,     J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. The first respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No.109 of  

1995 praying for the grant of permanent injunction against the  

appellant – Executive Engineer, Lower Vanna Project Division No.1,  

Wardha and also for a direction to restore the land to him.  It was  

alleged that the defendants had undertaken the construction of the  

canal of Lower Vanna Project through the middle portion of the

Page 2

2

plaintiff’s field, consequently a mandatory injunction was sought for  

to restore the land prior to the commencement of constructing the  

canal.  The plaintiff alleged that the same was done to favour a  

nearby land owner so that his land could be saved.  The suit was  

decreed and the defendants took up the matter in appeal which was  

dismissed and the matter was carried to the High Court.  The High  

Court also dismissed the appeal on merits.  The High Court in his  

order stated as follows:

“I have carefully perused the documents  produced by the appellant before the first appellate  court.  The submission made on behalf of the  respondent No.1 that these documents do not  disclose that the Government proposed to construct  the canal through the middle portion of the field of  respondent No.1 is acceptable and correct.  Both  the Courts have considered the original plan/map  which was received from the custody of the  appellants before the trial court to hold that the  appellants had not proceeded with the construction  work of the canal as per the original map.  The  Courts have further considered the other  voluminous evidence on record to hold that the  plaintiff was entitled to the grant of permanent and  mandatory injunction as sought for.

As already mentioned hereinabove, the  documents placed by the appellants before the first  appellate court merely relate to the acquisition of

Page 3

3

0.7R of land belonging to the plaintiff/respondent  No.1 but, none of the documents show the location  through which the canal was to be constructed as  per the original map.”

3. The High Court also found no substantial question of law  

arose for consideration, in our view rightly.  The matter came up for  

hearing before this Court.  This Court passed an order on  

9.10.2009 which reads as follows:

“Petitioner’s counsel seeks four weeks’  time to  produce:

(1)the plan showing the original sanctioned alignment;

(2)the plan showing the actual alignment;

(3)the plan superimposing the actual alignment over the  sanctioned alignment to highlight the difference;  

(4)the photographs of the land;

(5)the extent of bifurcated land on either side of canal in  survey No.174;

(6)the protective measures proposed by petitioner to  ensure that the unacquired portion of the land can  be made cultivable by avoiding seepage.

It is open to the petitioner to directly make an  offer of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation in lieu of  dismantling and fresh construction of canal without  prejudice.”

Page 4

4

4. When the matter came up for final hearing, learned counsel  

appearing for the appellant brought before us a communication  

dated 01.08.2012 from the office of the Executive Engineer, Lower  

Vanna Canal Division, Wardha, the operative portion of which reads  

as follows:

“With reference to above cited subject under  caption, it is to inform you that if the Umra  Distributory of Lower Vanna Project is made close  for irrigation @ Survey No. 174 of Shri Maroti  Awachat as per order of the High Court then the  1019.34 Hq. of land and 635 No. of farmers will be  deprived from benefits of irrigation.  Also length of  distributory ahead from Survey No. 174 will not be  useful for irrigation purpose.”

5. We notice if the alignment is now changed and Umra  

Distributory of Lower Vanna Project stands closed for irrigation, it  

would affect 1019.34 Hr of land and 635 numbers of farmers would  

be deprived of the benefits of irrigation.  But all the same, the  

respondents have to be adequately compensated.  The amount of  

Rs.7.5 lakhs, in our view, would be an adequate compensation for  

the illegality committed by the appellant.  Consequently, we direct

Page 5

5

the appellant to pay Rs.7.5 lakhs to the respondents within the  

period of two months from today which will settle all the disputes  

pending between the parties.  The appeals are disposed of as above.  

The Judgment and decree is modified accordingly.  The appeals are  

disposed of with the above directions with no order as to costs.

……………………………….J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

..………………………………J. (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, October 4, 2012