Shri. Shridhar Changu Thakur And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3409 Bom

                                                                   37.10273.19 wp.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 10273 OF 2019
                                            WITH
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 9583 OF 2019

      Shri. Shridhar Changu Thakur and Ors                        ....Petitioners

              V/s.

      The State of Maharashtra through                            .....Respondent

Special Land Acquisition Offcerr Metro Centre No. 3r Panvel

Mr. Sachin S. Punde for the Petitioner in both petitions Smt. M. S. Bane AGP in WP 10273 of 2019 Mr. P. P. Pujari AGP in WP 9583/2019

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBREr J.

                               DATE:     FEBRUARY 23r 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      I am informed that frst Appeal preferred by the State

government against the award delivered under Section 11 of the Land

Acquisition Act is already dismissed whereas the cross objection of

the Petitioner is allowed thereby enhancing the compensation.

37.10273.19 wp.doc

2] From the facts it can be noticed that land was acquired on 24th

September 1986 and for almost last more than 30 years complete

compensation at enhanced rate is not paid.

3] Learned AGP informs that after more than 5 yearsr Review

proceedings are initiated in 2021 seeking review of the Judgment of

the First Appellate Court whereby Appeal of the State was dismissed

and Petitioners cross Appeal came to be allowed.

4] This cannot be the reason for putting the Petitioner to an

unreasonable condition. I am informed by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner that in Writ Petition No. 9583/2019 in addition to the

amount of which withdrawal is permittedr Rs. 7r15r971/- is yet to be

deposited by the Respondent-State whereas in Writ Petition No.

10273/2019r it is Rs. 2r93r22r217/-.

5] In that view of the matter the incorporation of unreasonable

condition of furnishing property extracts with the indemnity bond is

37.10273.19 wp.doc

unreasonable and as such it is directed that the Petitioner shall

furnish an undertaking on affdavit and indemnity bond for the

amount of which he has sought withdrawal.

6] Petition stands allowed in the above terms.

[NITIN W. SAMBREr J.]