MADAN GANGADHAR KASLE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS
Case Details
1 905-ca-1574-22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1574 OF 2022 IN FA/3427/2019 MADAN GANGADHAR KASLE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr G.K. Sontakke AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State : Mr S.P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr A.M. Gaikwad WITH 905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1579 OF 2022 IN FA/3431/2019 DNYANOBA VITHAL KALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr G.K. Sontakke AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State : Mr S.P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr A.M. Gaikwad WITH 905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1576 OF 2022 IN FA/3432/2019 TUKARAM HARIBA PASTAPURE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr G.K. Sontakke AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State : Mr S.P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr A.M. Gaikwad WITH 905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1577 OF 2022 IN FA/3425/2019 2 905-ca-1574-22 VITHAL NIVRUTI KALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr G.K. Sontakke AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State : Mr S.P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr A.M. Gaikwad WITH 905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1578 OF 2022 IN FA/3426/2019 VISHWANATH NAMDEO MANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr G.K. Sontakke AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State : Mr S.P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr A.M. Gaikwad WITH 905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1581 OF 2022 IN FA/3433/2019 SHIVAJI NAGNATH YECHALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr G.K. Sontakke AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State : Mr S.P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr A.M. Gaikwad WITH 905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1582 OF 2022 IN FA/3429/2019 NIVEDITA W/O SATISH MURKUTE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS … 3 905-ca-1574-22 Advocate for Applicant : Mr G.K. Sontakke AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State : Mr S.P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr A.M. Gaikwad
Legal Reasoning
which is found contrary to the full bench judgment of this Court in case of The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and that fact was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the above said Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Sontakke, learned counsel for the applicants / claimants, Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the acquiring body and Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal © Nos.17137-17143/2021 dated 08.11.2021. The important paragraphs of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced reproduced herein below: “Shri Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has heavily relied upon the orders passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.2481/2021 and other allied appeals as well as the similar orders passed by this Court with respect to the very acquisition by which this Court in the appeals preferred by the land owners have permitted the land owners to withdraw the amount to the extent of 50% of the enhanced compensation without security and permitting the balance 50% to be released to them on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. 5 905-ca-1574-22 Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and instead of calling the respondents herein to pass the similar orders which are passed by this Court in some of the appeals arising of the very acquisition, we dispose of the present Special Leave Petitions by relegating/permitting the petitioners to approach the High Court by way of appropriate applications for modification of the impugned order by pointing out the orders by this Court and as and when such applications are made, the High Court is directed to consider the similar orders passed by this Court which have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the High Court to modify the impugned order after giving opportunity to the acquiring body. It goes without saying that as it is reported that the orders passed by this Court are arising out of the very acquisition, the High Court will certainly consider the same and pass similar orders.” 7. In view of the clear directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above order, no scope is left before this Court. The applicants / claimants are entitled to withdraw remaining 60% balance amount of compensation, however, on furnishing solvent surety / security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which would take care of the interest of the acquiring body and State.
Arguments
CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 28th APRIL, 2022 PER COURT : 1. These are the applications moved by the applicants / original claimants to withdraw the remaining balance amount deposited by respondent no.3 in this Court. 2. Heard MR. Sontakke, learned counsel for the applicants / claimants, Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the acquiring body and Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2 / State. 3. Mr. Sontakke, learned counsel for the applicants / claimants invited my attention to the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.17137-17143/2021 (arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25.11.2020 in CA No.7540/2020, CA No. 7541/2020, CA No. 7542/2020, CA No. 7543/2020, CA No. 7544/2020, CA No.7545/2020 and CA No. 7546/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad). By placing reliance on the above said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mr. Sontakke, learned counsel for the applicants / claimants seeks permission to withdraw the remaining 60% balance amount of compensation lying in this Court. 4. Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the acquiring body and Mr Deshmukh, learned AGP for the State strongly opposed to allow these applications to withdraw remaining 60% balance amount of the compensation. 4 905-ca-1574-22 By way of alternate submission they submitted that at the most, the applicants / claimants may be permitted to withdraw in total 75% of the amount of compensation, which would take care of interest of the acquiring body. 5. Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the acquiring body submitted that the Reference Court has committed grave error in awarding the interest in favour of claimants under Sections 28 and 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Decision
O R D E R (i) The applications moved by the applicants / claimants are hereby allowed as under: (a) The applicants / respective claimants are permitted to withdraw remaining 60% balance amount of 6 905-ca-1574-22 compensation deposited by respondent no.3 in this Court with accrued interest thereon on furnishing solvent surety / security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. (b) Upon furnishing such solvent surety / security, the Registry to make payment to the applicants /respective claimants. (ii) The civil applications are accordingly disposed of. mta ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)