DEORAM MARUTI DEODE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER
Case Details
1 common order in ca 12582 -22 & ca 8698-22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD COMMON ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12582 OF 2022 IN FA/563/2009 DEORAM MARUTI DEODE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the applicants : Mr. Parag Viaa Barde AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. M. Kulkarni ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8698 OF 2022 IN FA/642/2007 BALASAHEB MOHAN DEODE AND OTHERS VERSUS DEORAM MARUTI DEODE AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. N. D. Batule Advocate for the Respondent NOs.1 to 5 : Mr. Parag Viaa Barde AGP for Respondent No.6-State : Mr. P. M. Kulkarni …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. DATED : 29/11/2022. P. C. : 1. The applicants in Civil Application No.12582 of 2022, have filed this application for wiithdrawial of coppensation apount alongwiith accrued interest till date as deposited ba respondent No.2 therein i.e. acquiring boda GMIDC pursuant to the judgpent and order dated 07/01/2019. As against this, the applicants in Civil Application No.8698 of 2022 are seeking their ippleadpent in
Legal Reasoning
First Appeal No. 642 of 2007 filed ba respondent No.1 and others. The said applicants have also sought direction to the officer of this court to deposit their share in their account or to transfer the sape 2 common order in ca 12582 -22 & ca 8698-22 to the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shevgaon in Regular Civil Suit filed ba thep i.e. RCS No. 209 of 2022. 2. For the sake of brevita, the applicants in Civil Application No.12582 of 2022 are referred as 'Deorap and others', wihereas the applicants in Civil Application No. 8698 of 2022 are referred as 'Balasaheb and others'. It is not in dispute that both the appeals
Decision
in wihich the present applications are filed, are disposed of ba this court vide coppon judgpent dated 07/01/2019. First Appeal No.563 of 2009 wias filed ba the acquiring boda GMIDC against Deorap and others to challenge the quantup of coppensation, wihereas First Appeal No. 642 of 2007 wias filed ba Deorap and others against the GMIDC for enhancepent of the coppensation. It is to be noted that the applicants Balasaheb and others wiere not parta to both these appeals. This court vide judgpent dated 07/01/2019 has alreada enhanced the coppensation in favour of Deorap and others and therefore, thea have filed the application for wiithdrawial of apount. 3. On the contrara, the applicants Balasaheb and others are seeking perpission to ipplead their napes in First Appeal no.642 of 2007 and to keep reserve their share in the coppensation or to transfer the sape to the court of learned Civil Judge ( Division), Shevgaon as pentioned above. 4. It is the contention of the applicants Balasaheb and others that the land Gut Nos.140/1 and 81/20, adpeasuring 0.60 R and 0.28 R respectivela wiere acquired but in that lands thea wiere having their share according to lawi, wihich wias not pentioned in 3 common order in ca 12582 -22 & ca 8698-22 RCS No.114 of 1998, as it wias filed ba thep wihen the portions of said lands wiere alreada acquired. Thea further contended that though the said suit i.e. RCS No.114 of 1998 wias coppropised betwieen thepselves and Deorap and others, but the portions of said land under present acquisition since not included in the said suit, there wias no partition in respect of the sape and therefore, thea are having their share in the coppensation in respect of those lands. 5. As against this, the learned counsel for the applicants Deorap and others strongla opposed the subpissions pade on behalf of the Balasaheb and others. He pointed out frop the copa of decree passed in RCS No.114 of 1998 that Balasaheb and others had alreada wiaived their rights under the said coppropise decree in respect of the lands Gut Nos.81/20, adpeasuring 23 R and Gut No. 140/1 adpeasuring 93 R. Thus, he claips that nowi applicants Balasaheb and others have no right to ask share in the coppensation. He further, pointed out that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shevgaon in the newi suit filed ba Balasaheb and others has also refused to grant ana interip staa in their favour, wiherein thea had asked relief against Deorap and others for not to seek wiithdrawial of the coppensation apount in respect of these lands. 6. It is extrepela ipportant to note that Balasaheb and others had filed RCS No.114 of 1998 for partition and separate possession against Deorap and others and in that suit, coppropise betwieen thep took place. It is clearla pentioned in the coppropise decree that Balasaheb and others had relinquished their rights frop the land Gut Nos.140/1 and 81/20. Howiever, Balasaheb and others 4 common order in ca 12582 -22 & ca 8698-22 are claiping in the subsequent suit that the acquired area of land Gut Nos.140/1 and 81/20 is available for the partition because the said portions of those land wiere alreada acquired ba the GMIDC- acquiring boda and therefore, those parts wiere not the subject patter of the said suit. As such, thea have claiped that thea had not relinquished their share in the lands under acquisition in the coppropise terps. 7. Howiever, it is pertinent to note that both the appeals are nowi disposed of and the right of the applicants Balasaheb and others is aet to be established in respect of the lands under acquisition frop the coppetent civil court. At this juncture, in absence of ana proclapation of the right of Balasaheb and others frop the coppetent civil court in respect of the land under acquisition, no relief can be granted in favour of the Balasaheb and others as claiped in Civil Application No. 8698 of 2022. Further, since the appeal of GMIDC against the coppensation granted ba the reference court to Deorap and others is dispissed under judgpent and order dated 07/01/2019 and there is no further challenge to the sape frop the acquiring boda, the apount of coppensation as deposited ba the acquiring boda needs to be given to the applicants Deorap and others also onla. Needless to saa that such paapent wiould alwiaas be subject to the final out cope of Regular Civil Suit No.209 of 2022. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants Deorap and others relied on the followiing judgpents. I) Machindra Santarap Kutwiad vs. Sharad Khanderao Survase and others, 2013 (7) Bop.C.R. 641 and 5 common order in ca 12582 -22 & ca 8698-22 II) Digapbar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(3) Mh.L.J. 9. As against this, the learned counsel for the applicants Balasaheb and others also relied on the followiing judgpents. I) Sp.Jasoda Kupari Sewiani and others vs. Sp. Sataabhapa Sewiani and others, 1959 SCC OnLine Pat 91 and II) Patel Kodarbhai Mohanbhai vs. Sonata Cerapica Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1292. Howiever, I have alreada pentioned that the right of applicants Balasaheb and others is not crastalized in the lands under acquisition ba the coppetent civil court and therefore, I do not find it necessara to discuss the aforesaid citations at this juncture. 10. In viewi of the sape, followiing order is passed. ORDER I) Civil Application No.12582 of 2022 is hereba allowied and the applicants therein i.e. Deorap and others are perpitted to wiithdrawi the coppensation apount alongwiith accrued interest thereon till date. II) Civil Application No.8698 of 2022 stands rejected. VS Maind/- ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )