Bombay High Court
Sulochana Ramrao Sarole And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 April, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, R. G. Avachat
WP.Nos.4813 and 4835 of 2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4813 OF 2020
1. Madhav Bhimrao Menkudale,
Age 71 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
2. Trimbak Bapurao Menkudale,
Through LRs.
Anil Trimbak Menkudale
Age 45 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
3. Nasroddin Ajimsab Shaikh,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
4. Tukaram Bapurao Bhinge,
Age 40 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
5. Anil Santram Bodake
Age 50 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
6. Sayyad Ghudan Shafiyoddin,
Age 67 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
7. Kalyan Bhimrao Menkudale,
Age 68 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
8. Ramrao Tukaram Sarole,
Age 61 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 09:44:33 :::
2 WP.Nos.4813 and 4835 of 2020
9. Dnyanoba Ramrao Badgire,
Age 59 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Nandura (Bk), Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
10. Bahusaheb Piraji @ Bapurao Shelke,
Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
11. Mir Jawedali Mir Akbarali,
Age 48 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
12. Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Yusufoddin,
Age 52 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
13. Shaikh Abdulla Shaikh Alisab,
Age 47 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Irrigation Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The District Collector,
Latur
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Latur
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Latur,
5. Maharashtra Nagri Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Latur,
Through its Branch Manager
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 09:44:33 :::
3 WP.Nos.4813 and 4835 of 2020
6. Giriraj K. Joshi,
Age:Major, Occ. Service as
Executive Engineer, Latur,
Minor Irrigation, Latur ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4835 OF 2020
1. Sulochana Ramrao Sarole,
Age : 55 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Shirur-Tajband, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. Amol Ramrao Sarole,
Age : 40 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Shirur-Tajband, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
3. Satyawan Ramrao Sarole
Age 36 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Shirur-Tajband, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
4. Rohini Satyawan Sarole,
Age : 30 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Shirur-Tajband, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
5. Kondabai Vithalrao Khandade,
Age 35 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Shirur-Tajband, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
6. Balaji Ramrao Badgire,
Age:52 years, Occ.Agri.,
r/o. Nandur (Bk), Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
7. Vatsala Dnyanoba Badgire,
Age : 55 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Nandur (Bk), Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 09:44:33 :::
4 WP.Nos.4813 and 4835 of 2020
8. Manisha Sangram Menkudale,
Age : 35 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
9. Sangram Kalyan Menkudale,
Age : 40 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
10. Bhimashankar Sangram Menkudale,
Age 19 years, Occ. Education,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
11. Sagar Satish Menkudale,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
12. Parwatibai Madhav Menkudale,
Age 74 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
13. Alim Gundhansab Sayyad,
Age:38 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
14. Aslam Gudhansab Sayyad,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
15. Kalim Gundhansab Sayyad,
Age 34 years, Occ. Agri,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
16. Ajim Gudhansab Sayyad,
Age 40 years, Occ.Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 09:44:33 :::
5 WP.Nos.4813 and 4835 of 2020
17. Mahemmud Gudhansab Sayyad,
Age : 41 years, Occ.Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
18. Javed Gudhansab Sayyad,
Age : 30 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
19. Yeshwant Bapurao Bhinge,
Age:43 years, Occ. Agri,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
20. Meera Tukaram Bhinge,
Age 27 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
21. Gangabai Yeshwant Bhinge,
Age : 35 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
22. Somesh Dnyanoba Badgire,
Age : 40 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur
23. Hariram Sudhakar Kanwate,
Age : 39 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Dhanora (Bk) Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
24. Jayashree Anil Bodke,
Age : 40 years, occ. Agri.,
r/o. Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur ..Petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 09:44:33 :::
6 WP.Nos.4813 and 4835 of 2020
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Irrigation Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The District Collector,
Latur
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Latur
5. Maharashtra Nagri Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Latur,
Through its Branch Manager
6. Vaidyanath Urban Co-op.
Bank Ltd., Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
Through its Branch Manager
7. Latur District Central Co-op.
Bank Ltd., Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur
Through its Branch Manager
8. Mahesh Urban Bank, Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
Through its Branch Manager
9. The Central Bank of India,
Branch Kingaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur,
through its Branch Manager
10. Giriraj K. Joshi,
Age:Major, Occ. Service as
Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur ..Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 09:44:33 :::
7 WP.Nos.4813 and 4835 of 2020
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.L.C.Patil, Advocate for
petitioners in W.P. No.4813 of 2020
Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.L.C.Patil, Advocate for
petitioners in W.P.No.4835 of 2020
Mr.D.R.Kale, Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 4
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Ruturaj Patil, Advocate for
respondent no.6
Mr.S.W.Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no.6 in W.P.No.4835 of
2020
----
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 04, 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 21, 2022
JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at
the stage of admission.
2. These are the Writ Petitions arising from peculiar
state of affairs.
3. We have heard the learned Senior Advocates
Mr.V.D.Sapkal and Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh who appear for the
petitioners and Senior Advocate Mr.R.N.Dhorde for the
respondent-acquiring body, extensively.
4. The awards passed by the reference Court under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were challenged before
this Court by the acquiring body aggrieved by the enhanced
rate of compensation awarded by it, and by the land
owners as well feeling aggrieved of not having been granted
adequate compensation. The reference Court had awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.115/- per sq.ft. for N.A.
potential land and Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for other land. As usual,
the amount of such enhanced compensation was deposited in
this Court. The claimants approached the Supreme Court and
by the order of the Supreme Court, they were permitted to
withdraw 50% of the amount subject to furnishing usual
undertaking and 50% by furnishing bank guarantee.
5. The claimants withdrew only part of the amount.
The remaining remained deposited in this court. Subsequently,
all the First Appeals of the acquiring body were allowed and the
rate of compensation was reduced to Rs.75/- per sq.ft. and
Rs.60/- per sq.ft. These First Appeals were disposed of by the
common judgment and order dated 16.09.2019.
6. It appears that the claimants, thereafter, withdrew
Rs.52,34,95,771/- collectively from the Registry of this Court
on the basis of a communication dated 11.06.2020 received
from the respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer. The total
amount withdrawn by the petitioners/claimants is
Rs.97,97,84,737/-.
7. Respondent No.5 who is the Executive Engineer in
the acquiring body formed an opinion that taking into account
the rate of the enhanced compensation which was reduced by
this Court and all other factors to be taken into account for
calculating the amount of compensation including all the
statutory components under the Land Acquisition Act, excess
amount was withdrawn by the claimants. He, therefore,
informed the matter to the Collector who swung into action and
issued various directions pursuant to which communications
were made to respondent No.5 - Maharashtra Nagri Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Latur, to which the claimants' compensation was
transmitted. Since the claimants had transferred some of the
money to various persons, the bank seized the accounts of
these 16 claimants and also other 24 persons in whose
accounts the monies were transferred from the claimants'
account.
8. Aggrieved by such seizure of the accounts, the
claimants have filed Writ Petition No.4813 of 2020 and the
other persons to whose accounts the monies were found to be
transmitted have preferred Writ Petition No.4835 of 2020
questioning the action of the Collector, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, the bank and the Executive Engineer of the
acquiring body.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions of all
the senior Advocates and borne in mind the aforementioned
circumstances. Elaborate arguments were advanced to
demonstrate as to what amount of compensation the claimants
are actually entitled to taking into account the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act and what actually is due and payable to
the claimants pursuant to the judgment and order passed by
this Court in the First Appeals. We are of the considered view
that taking into account the scope and ambit of these Writ
petitions, going by the reliefs being claimed, it will not be
appropriate and rather unnecessary to go into all such
calculations. Admittedly, the matter is now sub-judice before
the Supreme Court in the form of Special Leave Petitions by the
claimants and the acquiring body as well. Therefore, the
propriety demands that this Court having become functus
officio vis a vis the First Appeals are concerned, does not enter
into that arena.
10. We are only called upon to examine the alleged
highhanded action of the respondents in moving the things
compelling the respondents/banks to seize the accounts of the
petitioners by exerting influence. Assuming that the claimants
had withdrawn some excess amount to which they are not
actually entitled to, it is indeed startling that the government
machinery has moved into action requiring the
respondents/banks to seize accounts. In fact, it was a matter
between banks and its clients. In the normal case scenario,
this would seem to be indeed a highhanded action of the
government machinery.
11. However, the facts and circumstances in the matter
in hand are such that, even if the action of the respondents is
de hors the provisions of any law, it would not be appropriate
for the writ court to overlook the circumstances in which the
government machinery had to move.
12. Admittedly, the claimants had not withdrawn the
complete amount of compensation which was lying in this Court
till the First Appeals were disposed of. As is mentioned herein
above, this was, in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court had
permitted them to withdraw the entire amount of
compensation. Admittedly, the First Appeals were thereafter
decided finally. The amount of compensation that was
deposited by the acquiring body in this court was pursuant to
the calculations made in accordance with the rate of
compensation that was enhanced by the reference Court to
Rs.115/- per sq.ft. for N.A. potential land and Rs.100/- per
sq.ft. for other land. In the First Appeals, this rate was
reduced to Rs.75/- per sq.ft. and Rs.60/- per sq.ft. Obviously,
this would necessitate a fresh calculation in view of such
drastically reduced rate of compensation. Admittedly, without
there being any further order solicited from this Court in the
disposed of First Appeals, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
directly communicated with the Registry of this Court and the
claimants were allowed to withdraw the amount of
compensation which stood deposited in this Court.
13. As we have said earlier, it will not be appropriate for
this Court to undertake a further exercise of making
calculations in these Writ Petitions when this Court has become
functus officio to the extent of the decisions in the First Appeals
and when the parties are already before the Supreme Court.
What we intend to note is that, the awards passed by the
reference Court were modified by this court in the First
Appeals. It was imperative that there should have been some
judicial order thereafter, under which the claimants could have
been allowed to withdraw the monies. Even if the order of the
Supreme Court had permitted them to withdraw 100% of the
compensation, they had not withdrawn that and the First
Appeals were decided finally thereafter. In view of such events,
in our considered view, the Registry could not have allowed any
such withdrawal of compensation once the First Appeals were
disposed of. It would have been appropriate that the claimants
either should have solicited some order from this court on the
judicial side or could have preferred execution before the
reference Court. Nothing of the sort seems to have happened.
14. We had called upon the Registry to undertake an
exercise to calculate the compensation in accordance with the
decision in the First Appeals. It has prepared a chart and has
pointed out that the claimants have withdrawn an aggregate of
Rs.42,60,08,620/- in excess. We make it clear that we do not
intend to recheck the calculations and even it would not be
appropriate to do so once the parties are before the Supreme
Court. We only emphasize that going by the calculations, a
huge excess amount has been disbursed to the claimants.
Without indulging into the causes which led to such
disbursement, when it is a matter of public money and when
individual interest and public interest are pitted against each
other in such matters, the latter should take precedence.
15. We are of the considered view that though the
action of the respondents is not in accordance with the rule of
law, the propriety demands and the interest of justice would be
met if the claimants are directed to bring back the excess
money which can be deposited as a fixed deposit so that
interest can be earned as a condition precedent for defreezing
the accounts.
16. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.4835 of 2020 to
whose accounts the monies have been transferred by the
claimants also sail in the same boat as that of the claimants.
According to us, even to their extent, a similar direction can be
issued asking them to return the money which they have
received from the claimants as a condition for defreezing their
accounts.
17. We allow both these Writ Petitions partly. The
respondents are directed to defreeze the accounts of the
petitioners in both these Writ Petitions, subject to the condition
that they bring back and deposit the money in this Court
according to the chart prepared by the Registry marked as 'X'
for the purpose of identification and after confirming the fact
from the Registry of this Court.
18. To enable the petitioners to comply with the
aforementioned condition, the respondents shall permit them
to make necessary compliance and follow procedural formalities
so that the monies can be transmitted back to this Court.
19. Rule is partly made absolute in terms of the above
order.
(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
KBP
