Bombay High Court
Vinayak Bama Patil And Ors vs The Deputy Collector (Land ... on 6 December, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, M. M. Sathaye
YSP
1
910-WP-10823-2022 & Ors..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10823 OF 2022
Namdeo Kana Patil (Deceased)
through Legal Heirs
Dhanaji Namdeo Patil & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Collector (Land
YUGANDHARA
Acquisition) Metro Centre No.3 and Ors. ... Respondents
SHARAD PATIL
Digitally signed by
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD PATIL
Date: 2022.12.09
WITH
14:45:39 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 10826 OF 2022
Indubai Vishnu Gavand and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) Metro Centre No.3 and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10825 OF 2022
Vinayak Bama Patil and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11193 OF 2022
Akkabai Padya Patil and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) Metro Centre No.3 and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 111421 OF 2022
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2022 03:51:22 :::
YSP
2
910-WP-10823-2022 & Ors..doc
Maribai Alias Radhabai Krushna
Karadi Alias Shinde and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition and Ors. ... Respondents
******
Mr. Sachin Punde for the Petitioners in all Wps.
Mr. R.S. Pawar AGP for the Respondent-State in WP No.
10823/22, WP No. 10826/22, & WP No. 10825/22.
Mrs. R.M. Shinde AGP for the Respondent-State in WP No.
11193/22 & WP No. 111421/22.
Mr. G.S. Hegde a/w Mr. P.M. Bhanushali for Respondent-CIDCO
in all Wps.
******
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
M.M.SATHAYE JJ.
DATE : 6th DECEMBER 2022
P.C. :-
1. Rule. Learned counsel for CIDCO waives service. Learned AGP
waives service for State of Maharashtra. Rule is made returnable
forthwith.
2. By consent of parties, the petitions were heard together and
are being disposed of by a common order in view of the facts and
the issues raised therein are identical.
3. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
YSP
910-WP-10823-2022 & Ors..doc
India, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the
respondents to forthwith implement and make the payment of re-
determined amount of compensation as per various Awards
prescribed in prayer clause (B) of the petitions.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondents have not raised any
dispute that the awards which are the subject matter of these
petitions are executable and that those awards are not challenged by
the CIDCO or by the State of Maharashtra and they have attained
finality.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of
this Court delivered on 29th April 2022 in Writ Petition No. 2087 of
2021 in case of Trimbak Joma Thakur and Ors Vs. Principal
Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors. and also copy of
the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18 th July 2022 in
Special Leave Petition No.11184 of 2022 arising out the final
judgment and order dated 29th April 2022 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 2087 of 2022.
6. This court has negated all the contentions raised by the
respondents in this batch of petitions after referring to various
YSP
910-WP-10823-2022 & Ors..doc
judgments. The judgment and order passed by this Court in the said
writ petition has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the
special leave petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated
18th July 2022.
7. These awards in favour of the petitioners awarding payment of
compensation having been attained finality, the respondents cannot
refuse to comply with those awards and to pay the awarded
compensation to the petitioners. In our view, the view taken on the
part of the respondents is totally contrary to the principle laid down
by this Court in the judgment in the case of Trimbak Joma Thakur
and Anr.(supra).
8. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the CIDCO could not
distinguish the judgment of this Court in case of Trimbak Joma
Thakur. In our view, the said judgment squarely apply to the facts of
this case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, state that
to the knowledge of the petitioners, no appeal has been preferred by
the State Government against the awards which are the subject
matter of these writ petitions. Admittedly CIDCO has not filed any
YSP
910-WP-10823-2022 & Ors..doc
appeal against the awards which are the subject matter of these
petitions.
10. We accordingly pass the following order:
(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer
Clause (B).
(ii) The State Government is directed to submit a
proposal with computation of the amount payable to the
petitioners under the said awards which are the subject
matter of this petition to the CIDCO within two weeks
from today without fail with the copy thereof to be served
upon the petitioners.
(iii) The CIDCO is directed to deposit the amount that
would be computed by the State Government within a
period of three months from the date of the receipt of such
proposal without fail with the State Government.
(iv) Such deposit shall be inclusive of the amount of
interest for a period of 3 months from the date of
submission of such proposal to CIDCO i.e. upto the date of
YSP
910-WP-10823-2022 & Ors..doc
payment.
(v) Upon receipt of such amount from CIDCO, the
State Government shall release such amount in favour of
the petitioners within a period of two weeks thereafter
without fail.
11. In view of these directions, we give three months time to
CIDCO to make such deposit which would be obviously inclusive of
the interest considering the time granted to CIDCO for making such
payment.
12. The Writ Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
[M.M.SATHAYE,J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
