Bombay High Court
M.S.E.B.Thru ... vs Abdul Alim Abdul Aziz Patel And Anr on 24 February, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
-:(1):-
416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 416 OF 1998
***
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
through the Executive Engineer (Civil)
M.S.E.B., Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
[INTERESTED PARTY]
VERSUS
1. Abdul Alim Abdul Aziz Patel.
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
1A. Shafikbee Abdul Alim Patwari (Wife)
Age 80 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Laxmjana Tq. Ausa Dist. Latur.
1B. Javed S/o Abdul Alim Patwari (Son)
Age: 60 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o as above.
1C. Ahmed Vahid S/o Abdul Alim Patwari (Son)
Age: 57 yrs., Occ. Agri. R/o as above.
1D. Bebi Naimuddin Kazi (Daughter),
Age: 54 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o as above.
1E. Shamim Noorkha Pathan (Daughter),
Age 51 yrs., Oc. Household,
R/o as above.
1F. Nasim Abdul Vali Usmani (Daughter),
Age: 48 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o Gubal, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.
1G. Asma Nawab Shaikh (Daughter),
Age 45 yrs., Occ. Agri.
R?o Ambulga, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.
1G.Taslim Izaz Patel (Daughter),
Age: 42 yrs. Occ. Household,
R/o Lamjana Pati, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
[ORI.CLAIMANTS]
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:32:44 :::
-:(2):-
416
2. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Collector, Latur.
***
Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande.
Mr. M. L. Dharashive, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1A to 1G.
@@@
CORAM:- T. V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED:- 24th FEBRUARY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The appeal is filed by acquiring body against the
Judgment and Award in LAR No.282 of 1995 which was
pending before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Latur,
Reference Court. The Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation. Both the sides are heard.
2. The learned counsel for appellant, acquiring body
submitted that appeal is restricted on a point like
entitlement of the acquiring body to have say in the
matter. He placed reliance on the observations made by
this Court in the case reported as 2009 (2) Bom.C.R. 268
(Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas
Mahamandal through its Executive Engineer, Kadva
Canal Division V/s The State of Mahrashtra through
Collector, for himself and for Speciaql Land
Acquisition officer, Vaitarna Hydro Electric Project),
Bombay High Court. In this case, this Court has referred
-:(3):-
the case of Apex Court in which the Apex Court has laid
down that the acquiring body is necessary party as the
acquiring body is required to make payment of
compensation amount. In view of this position of law and
the fact of the present matter that the acquiring body was
not made party in the Reference Court, this Court holds
that the proceeding needs to be allowed. It appears that
this Court has allowed original claimants to withdraw 50%
amount deposited by the acquiring body. The claimants
can be allowed to retain that amount and the right of the
acquiring body to recover the amount from the original
claimant, will be subject to decision by the Reference
Court.
3. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
and Award of Reference Court is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh trial.
During fresh trial, opportunity needs to be given to the
acquiring body to file written statement and both the sides
be allowed to lead evidence. The amount of compensation
already collected by the claimants is to be kept with the
claimants till the decision of the matter which is remanded
back to the Reference Court. The Reference Court to
-:(4):-
decide the matter expeditiously and in any case within six
months from the date of receipt of the order. The amount,
which is already lying in this Court after making payment
to the original claimants is tobe returned to the acquiring
body. The security taken from the claimants and bank
guarantee are to continue.
Dated:24/02/2016.
ig [T. V. NALAWADE, J.]
ans/416
