Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 41024103 OF 2020
(Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.1421514216/2020)
Nayara Energy Limited …Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
dated 18.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Civil
Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 1543 of
2020 and the subsequent order dated 30.09.2020 passed in
Misc. Civil Application (for modification of order) No. 2 of 2020 in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI
Date: 2020.12.18
14:44:01 IST
Reason:
First Appeal No. 1543 of 2020, permitting the original claimants
to withdraw 50% of the 80% of the amount, as awarded by the
1
learned Reference Court, without furnishing any security, the
appellant herein – the appellant/applicant before the High Court
has preferred the present appeals.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award passed by the learned Reference Court enhancing the
amount of compensation for the land acquired, the appellant
herein has preferred the first appeal before the High Court being
First Appeal No. 1543 of 2020. In the said appeal, the appellant
filed Civil Application (for Stay) no. 1 of 2020 praying to stay the
judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court. By
the impugned order dated 18.08.2020, the High Court has stayed
the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and
award passed by the learned Reference Court, on condition that
the appellant shall deposit 80% of the awarded amount along
with proportionate cost and interest before the learned Reference
Court. The High Court has further passed an order that upon
deposit of the aforesaid amount, the learned Reference Court to
deposit 50% out of the said deposited amount (80% of the
amount awarded by the learned Reference Court), together with
proportionate cost and interest, in the cumulative fixed deposit,
in any nationalised bank, initially for a period of five years, in the
2
names of the original claimants, which shall be continued to be
renewed from time to time, till the final disposal of the main first
appeal. The High Court has further passed an order that balance
50% of the 80% of the awarded amount together with
proportionate cost and interest is permitted to be withdrawn by
the original claimants. The High Court has further passed an
order that original claimants shall be entitled to withdraw 50% of
the accrued principal interest on the fixed deposit. That
thereafter the appellant herein filed an application to modify the
aforesaid order pointing out that in case of relied upon judgment,
relied upon by the learned Reference Court, an appal has been
preferred and there is an unconditional stay granted by the High
Court – Coordinate Bench, and therefore, it was prayed to modify
the aforesaid interim order. By order dated 30.09.2020, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed the said
application. Hence, the present appeals have been preferred by
the original applicant – acquiring body.
4. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant has stated at the Bar that instead of 80%
of the awarded amount, as directed by the High Court by the first
impugned interim order, the appellant is ready and willing to
3
deposit the entire 100% of the enhanced awarded amount,
together with interest and cost granted by the Reference Court,
as a condition for stay of the award. It is submitted that,
however, the claimants may not be permitted to withdraw the
amount without furnishing any security or solvency certificate to
the satisfaction of the learned Reference Court or the Executing
Court.
4.1 It is further submitted that if the claimants are permitted to
withdraw the amount of compensation, as awarded by the
learned Reference Court, without furnishing any security, in that
case and ultimately if the appellant succeeds before the High
Court, it will be very difficult for the appellant to recover any
amount from the original claimants. It is submitted that
therefore while permitting withdrawal, the High Court ought to
have put some conditions for giving security for withdrawal, so
that there may not be any difficulty for realising back the
amount, in the event the first appeal of the appellant is allowed
by the High Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants has submitted that the acquisition is of the year 1996
and after a period of approximately 17 years, the learned
4
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation. It is
submitted that the original claimants are agriculturists and their
lands have been acquired and that they are not in a position to
furnish any security. It is submitted that the High Court has not
committed any error in passing the impugned interim order and
permitting the original claimants to withdraw 50% of the 80% of
the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the Reference
Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length and the fact that the lands of the original claimants have
been acquired in the year 1996 and the learned Reference Court
has enhanced the amount of compensation after a period of
approximately 17 years (by now 20 years), and the original
claimants are not in a position to furnish any security, while
permitting the original claimants to withdraw the amount of
enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Reference
Court, to strike the balance and to consider the interest of both
the parties and recording the statement of Shri P.S. Narasimha,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that
the appellant is ready and willing to deposit the entire enhanced
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference
5
Court, together with interest and cost, we are of the opinion that
if the original claimants are permitted to withdraw 25% of the
enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned
Reference Court, together with proportionate interest and cost,
without furnishing any security and the balance 75% of the
enhanced amount of compensation, together with proportionate
cost and interest, as awarded by the learned Reference Court is
permitted to be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised
bank with cumulative interest, it will meet the end of justice and
take care of the interest of both the parties.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned order passed by the High Court dated 18.08.2020
passed in Civil Application (for stay) No. 1 of 2020 in First Appeal
No. 1543/2020 is modified as under:
i) the execution, operation and implementation of the
judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court,
impugned before the High Court in First Appeal No. 1543 of
2020, is stayed on condition that the appellant shall deposit
entire 100% of the awarded amount along with interest and cost
before the learned Reference Court, within a period of four weeks
from today;
6
ii) upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the learned Reference
Court is directed to deposit 75% of the said deposited amount
together with proportionate cost and interest, in the cumulative
fixed deposit, in any nationalised bank, initially for a period of
five years, in the name of the Court, which shall be continued to
be renewed from time to time, till the final disposal of the main
first appeal. The fixed deposit receipt may be kept in the custody
of the learned Reference Court;
iii) the balance 25% of the deposited amount, together with
proportionate cost and interest is permitted to be withdrawn by
the original claimants without furnishing any security, which
shall be paid by the learned Reference Court, by way of account
payee cheque, on proper identification and verification and the
original claimants shall be informed by the learned Reference
Court itself the amount which they are to be paid. The
withdrawal of the aforesaid amount shall be subject to the
ultimate outcome of the main first appeal.
7
8. The present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No
costs.
……………………………………….J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
……………………………………….J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………………J.
DECEMBER 18, 2020. [M.R. SHAH]
8