Bombay High Court
Dayaram S/O Hamu Pawar vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., ... on 9 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp2802.11 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2011
Dayaram s/o Hamu Pawar,
aged about 66 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
r/o Mokh, Tq. Digras,
District - Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Revenue
& Forests Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Collector,
Yavatmal, District - Yavatmal.
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Benefitted Zone,
Arunavati Project, Digras,
District - Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri C.A. Lokhande, AGP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 09, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
This Court has admitted the matter for early
hearing on 25.07.2011.
2. The petitioner - land owner has filed a pursis
inviting attention to the fact that the issue is covered by
adjudication in Writ Petition Nos. 1869 of 2012 and 5372 of
2014. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Shinde, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lokhande, learned AGP for
the respondents.
3. The fact that the proceedings pending before this
Court in First Appeal, arise out of LAC No. 5/65/85-86 of
village Mokh, Tq. Digras, District - Yavatmal, is not in dispute.
Similarly, the fact that the land of present petitioner has been
acquired in the very same land acquisition case is also not in
dispute.
4. In view of the judgment delivered by the Reference
Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), the present land owner
moved an application under Section 28A of the Act, as per law
and it has been allowed. However, by the impugned order
while permitting the petitioner to receive that amount of
additional compensation, a condition to furnish bank
guarantee has been imposed.
5. The learned AGP for the respondents points out
that if in appeal State Government succeeds, the land owners
will be required to refund the amount and, therefore, in order
to secure that recovery, bank guarantee has been asked for in
accordance with Circular dated 20.10.1995 issued by the State
Government.
6. Shri Shinde, learned counsel submits that the land
owner, who filed proceedings under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, has been allowed to withdraw the amount of
increased compensation after furnishing solvent surety.
7. These facts are not in dispute.
8. We find that in Reference proceedings under
Section 18 of the Act, after enhancement was granted, State
Government deposited enhanced amount with the Reference
Court. Half of it was allowed to be withdrawn by the land
owner who approached that Court. For remaining half, the
land owner was required to approach this Court in writ
petition and that writ petition has been allowed on
10.08.2005. In said Writ Petition No. 3543 of 2005, remaining
50% amount was allowed to be withdrawn after furnishing
solvent surety. Very same view has been taken again in Writ
Petition No. 1869 of 2012 on 20.12.2012.
9. In this situation, we direct the present petitioner to
furnish the solvent surety for the enhanced amount which has
been allowed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, with an undertaking that in case the pending First
Appeal filed before this Court is allowed, he shall refund the
amount received, with such interest and within such time as
this Court may in that event direct. The copy of solvent surety
furnished and undertaking shall also be placed on the record
of this writ petition and shall be served on Respondent No. 3.
10. Subject to furnishing solvent surety and an
undertaking, the petitioner - land owner is permitted to
receive the enhanced amount of compensation. Writ Petition
is thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute
in above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
ig ******
*GS.
