Bombay High Court
Shivkantabai Baburao Shelke vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 21 January, 2021
Bench: V.L. Achliya
1080.21CA+.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1080 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2018
Jijabai W/o Narayan Dahiphale (Died)
Through Legal Representative
1. Vanmalabai W/o Venkatrao Lahane
and others. .. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and anr. .. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1078 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1219 OF 2018
Shivkantabai W/o Baburao Shelke .. APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and anr. ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1081 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1220 OF 2018
Govind S/o Mahada Mamadge (died)
Through Legal Representative
Kesharbai Govind Mamadge .. APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and anr. .. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 13:14:20 :::
1080.21CA+.odt
2
Mr.G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr.A.A. Jagatkar, AGP for the respondent -
State.
Mr.S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent -
acquiring body.
...
CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA,J.
DATE : 21.01.2021
ORAL ORDER :
The applicants-claimants have moved
these applications seeking withdrawal of
amount deposited by the appellant-acquiring
body in the respective appeals.
2. In brief, it is the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant - acquiring
body that the appellant has good case to
succeed in appeals. The enhancement of
compensation is excessive and not sustainable
in law. The compensation assessed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer in the range
of Rs.434/- to Rs.540/- per R has been
enhanced by the Reference Court to
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for jirayat land and
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for bagayat land. It
is further submitted that the interest has
been awarded from the date of notification
which is contrary to the Full Bench decision
of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 13:14:20 :::
1080.21CA+.odt
3
reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. However,
learned counsel fairly submits that while
depositing the amount, the acquiring body has
deposited the amount by keeping in mind the
interest payable in terms of the decision in
the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari (supra).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the applicants-claimants submits that
appeals filed are devoid of merit. The
determination of compensation is based upon
the evidence adduced in the case. There is no
perversity in the judgment and order passed
by the trial Court. It is further submitted
that in group of appeals arising of out the
same award, this Court (Coram : M.G.
Sewlikar,J) vide order dated 27th October,
2020 allowed the withdrawal of entire amount
deposited. The applicants therein are
permitted to withdraw the amount to the
extent of 50% on furnishing undertaking and
the balance amount on furnishing bank
guarantee. Learned counsel therefore urged to
pass the order on the same line.
4. On due consideration of submission
advanced, I am of the view, the applicants be
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 13:14:20 :::
1080.21CA+.odt
4
permitted to withdraw the amount to the
extent of 70% of the amount deposited on
furnishing undertaking. It is not desirable
to put onerous condition of withdrawal of
amount on furnishing bank guarantee in cases
arising out of the land acquisition cases as
it is very difficult for the claimant-
agriculturists to arrange for the bank
guarantee. I am therefore of view, instead of
allowing the withdrawal of amount to the
extent of 100% of amount deposited in terms
of the order dated 27.10.2020 passed in
connected appeal, the permission be granted
to withdraw the amount to the extent of 70%
of the amount deposited on furnishing
undertaking to the effect that in the event
the award is set aside or modified, the
applicants shall redeposit the same within
eight weeks from the date of passing of
order. Hence the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The applications filed in respective
appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The applicants in respective
applications are permitted to withdraw the
amount to the extent of 70% of the amount
deposited in respective appeals on furnishing
1080.21CA+.odt
undertaking to the effect that in the event
the award is set aside or modified, they
shall redeposit the same within eight weeks
from the date of passing of such order.
(iii) The amount be paid to the applicants by
transferring the same in their respective
Savings Bank Accounts on furnishing
particulars of their respective Savings Bank
Accounts.
(iv) Payment of withdrawal is subject to
outcome of the appeals.
(v) The applications are disposed of in above
terms.
[V.L.ACHLIYA]
JUDGE
SGA
