High Court
Facts
905-WP-8309-2020.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 8309 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSChandrakant Parshuram Wakude And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8310 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSVenkatrao Bankatrao Patil And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8311 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSShivaji Chandrakant Patil And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8312 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSVijaymala Nagnath Swami And Another WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8314 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSAshok Lingappa Patil And Another WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8313 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSKamalbai Bhagwat Karwade And AnotherUmeshPAGE 1 OF 11
Legal Reasoning
905-WP-8309-2020.odttherefore, even otherwise no modification therein canbe asked now. He placed on record photocopy of thecommunication dated 09.11.2017 wherein it was decidedby the Acquiring Body not to challenge he award passedby the Reference Court by filing an Appeal. The saidcommunication is taken on record and marked ‘X’ foridentification.7.There is no dispute about the fact that theReference Court was competent to decide the referenceand no jurisdictional error has been committed by theReference Court. Thus, it cannot be said that the awardpassed by the Reference Court is without jurisdictionand null and void. Now, question arises as to whetherany error committed by the Reference Court in passingaward could have been corrected by the Execution Court.A candid answer thereto is in negative.8.Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedurethough sought to be relied upon by the Counsel for thePetitioner. However, it deals with all issues inrespect of the execution to be decided in the sameproceedings and not by separate suit. This cannot beconstrued as permitting Execution Court to act as anUmeshPAGE 8 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odtAppellate Court in order to correct error, if any,committed by the Court while passing the award ordecree. To hold so, would creates wrong precedent thenthe Execution Court would be able to go into thecorrectness or otherwise of the award/decree passed bythe Court and pass order as Appellate Court.9.The Supreme Court in case of Chhanga Singh andAnr (supra) also in no uncertain terms has held that itis settled law that an Execution Court cannot go behindthe decree. In the said case, however, it is held thatwhere the claim has not been made and rejected eitherexpressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or theAppellate Court, it would be open to the ExecutionCourt to apply the ratio in case of Sunder and say thatthe compensation awarded includes solatium. In theinstant case, there is specific order passed by theReference Court of granting interest on thecompensation from the date of notification. Thus, thiscannot be said to be a case wherein issue was not dealtwith by the Reference Court and hence, this judgmentwould not apply to the present case.10.Though it is sought to be argued thatUmeshPAGE 9 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odtmiscarriage of justice has been caused and the publicexchequer to the extent of Rs. 75 lacs is likely to bepaid in excess to the claimants, if at all miscarriageof justice has been caused, it is on account ofnegligence of Authorities of the Acquiring Body in notchallenging the said part of award by filing an Appeal.Needless to say that the Acquiring Body was dulyrepresented by the Advocate before the Reference Courtso also before Execution Court. If any error wascommitted by the Reference Court, it was open for theAcquiring Body to challenge the said award, as providedby law. This has not been done. If it is not doneconsciously, it may be open for the Acquiring Body torecover the said amount from the erring person as perlaw. Suffice it to say that the impugned order passedby the Execution Court is well within the parameters oflaw and for want of any perversity, the same does notdeserve interference.11.As a result of above discussion, Petitionsstand dismissed.12.At this stage, learned Counsel for thePetitioner seeks continuation of interim relief for aUmeshPAGE 10 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odtperiod of 10 weeks.13.Learned Counsel for Respondents opposes thecontinuation of any interim relief on the ground thatthe award is passed in the year 2016, and according tohim, Acquiring Body was never intending to prefer anyAppeal.14.Even accepting the contention of learnedCounsel for the Respondent to be true, as a matter offact interim relief is in force for a period of abovefive years. Hence, there would be no justification fornot extending the same for further reasonable period.Hence, interim relief stands extended for furtherperiod of six weeks from today. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) UmeshPAGE 11 OF 11
Arguments
905-WP-8309-2020.odtWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8315 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSAnant Babruwan Patil And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8316 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSOmprkash Santram Jatal And Another WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8317 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSSachin Shrirang Jatal And Another WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8326 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSSarika Shrirang Jatal And Another WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8318 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSKamal Shrirang Jatal And Another WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8319 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSSupriya Shrirang Jatal And Another WITHUmeshPAGE 2 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odtWRIT PETITION NO. 8320 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSManjushri Sachin Jatal And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8321 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSShrirang Baburao Jatal And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8322 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSSurekha Bhagwat Kutwad And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8323 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSBaburao Shakarappa Sugre And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8327 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSSatyawan Baburao Karwade And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8328 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSShrish Ashok Patil And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8324 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2UmeshPAGE 3 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odtVERSUSNarayan Sudam Jatal And AnotherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8325 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSGafursab Amirsab Sayyed And AntherWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8329 OF 2020The Executive Engineer Lower Terna Canal Project Div 2VERSUSAnusayabai Shrirang Karwade And Another…Mr. R. B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner in allPetitionsMr. R. P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 inall PetitionsMr. S N. Shirse, AGP for Respondent No. 2/State in allPetitions***CORAM:R. M. JOSHI, JDATE:AUGUST 08, 2025COMMON ORDER : 1.By consent of both sides, heard finally at thestage of admission.2.Since these Petitions involve common questionof facts and law, the same are decided by this commonorder.3.The facts in these cases are not in dispute toUmeshPAGE 4 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odtstate that there was acquisition of the lands ofRespondents by notification dated 02.01.2008 underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short‘the Act’). Award came to be passed on 08.07.2011. Theland owners being aggrieved by the quantum ofcompensation under the said award, filed referencesunder Section 18 of the Act. The references came to beallowed by common judgment and award dated 05.12.2016.Since the amount of compensation as determined by theReference Court was not paid, claimants filed executionproceedings. In the execution proceeding the amount ofcompensation along with interest came to be depositedby the Acquiring Body.4.Acquiring Body during the pendency of theexecuting proceeding preferred Application beforeExecution Court on 22.04.2018 calling upon theExecuting Court to modify the award to the extent ofinterest granted to the claimants from the date ofnotification instead from the date of award. LearnedExecution Court heard both sides and passed impugnedorder dated 24.02.2020 rejecting application filed bythe Acquiring Body essentially on the ground that theUmeshPAGE 5 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odtExecuting Court cannot go behind the award and even ifit is accepted that there is error committed by theCourt in granting interest under Section 28 of the Act,still Execution Court cannot correct the said error.5.Learned Counsel for the Acquiring Body submitsthat the amount of almost Rs. 75 lacs is likely to bepaid in excess to the claimants, to which they are notentitled. To support the submission that ReferenceCourt could not have granted interest from the date ofnotification and it ought to have granted from the dateof award, he placed reliance on the judgment of FullBench of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs.Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. It is hissubmission that in view of law settled by Full Bench ofthis Court, it was not open for the Reference Court togrant interest on the amount of compensation from thedate of notification. Thus, it is his contention thatsince the interest granted by the Reference Court iscontrary to the provision of law, it ought to have beenmodified by the Execution Court. He placed reliance onthe judgment of the Supreme Court in case of ChhangaSingh and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr, AIR 12 SCUmeshPAGE 6 OF 11 905-WP-8309-2020.odt2879, in order to argue that as held herein it is openfor the Execution Court to modify the award. Similarly,he took this Court through the followingjudgments:Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai PrakashUniversity and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2552, M/s BrakewelAutomotive Componenets (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. P. R.Selvam Alagappan, AIR 2017 SC 1577, Sakuntala Mishraand Others vs. Jagdeep Pratap Deo, AIR 2019 (NOC) 456& Satya Narain Garg vs. Learned Additional DistrictJudge NO. 2, Ajmer and Others, 2019 STPL 3304Rajasthan, wherein the scope of Section 47 of Code ofCivil Procedure has been explained. The sum andsubstance of his contention is that since miscarriageof justice has been caused by the award passed by theReference Court, the said error ought to have beencorrected by the Execution Court.6.Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Claimantssupported the impugned order by relying upon theproposition of law that the Execution Court cannot gobehind the award. He pointed out from record that thereis a conscious decision taken by Acquiring Body not tochallenge Award passed by Reference Court and,UmeshPAGE 7 OF 11