Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1398 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Yashwant Waman Patil & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/02/2008
BENCH:
Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
(Arising out of SLP[C] No.5670 of 2007)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against an interim order dated 22nd of
December, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) in
Notice of Motion No.380 of 2006 arising out of Writ Petition
No.11 of 2005. On a pending writ application, a notice of motion
was filed by the present appellants, inter alia, praying against
others for deposit of additional sums in terms of an order of the
Bombay High Court dated 29th of November, 2005 and also for
an early hearing of the writ petition and further to direct the
release of the amount deposited in favour of the appellants. It
is not in dispute that in terms of the calculation sheet, the
municipal corporation of Greater Bombay had already deposited
in the High Court a sum of Rs. 17,23,29,933/-. The High Court by
the impugned order had allowed the appellants to withdraw the
amount deposited on the condition that the appellants shall
furnish a bank guarantee in respect of the said sum on a prima
facie finding that the Municipal corporation had enjoyed the
possession of the acquired land for more than 40 years without
making payment of compensation. It is this order, which is now
under challenge in the present appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.Pallav Shishodia,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr.Patwalia
contended that the High Court had committed an error in
imposing a condition on the appellants to furnish bank guarantee
for withdrawal of the compensated amount when the
respondents enjoyed the possession of the acquired land for
more than 40 years without making payment of compensation.
According to Mr.Patwalia, since the appellants had no source of
income nor had any property to secure the withdrawal of the
amount or to furnish bank guarantee, it would be a mere
impossibility to withdraw the compensated amount and
accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
condition imposed on the appellants should be withdrawn. This
submission of Mr.Patwalia was hotly contested by Mr.Pallav
Shishodia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who
contended that the appellants have already been paid in excess
under the terms and conditions of an agreement of the year 1978
and if now they are permitted to withdraw the amount already
deposited and lying in the court and in view of the submission of
Mr.Patwalia that the appellants have no source of income nor
have any property to secure the amount that would be
withdrawn, it would be a mere impossibility to recover the amount
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
from the appellants, if allowed to be withdrawn, in the event the
writ petition succeeds in which the award in question has been
challenged.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
considering the materials on record and considering the
submissions made on behalf of the parties, we dispose of this
appeal with the following directions:
[a] The amount deposited in the High Court shall be
deposited in fixed deposit of any nationalized bank in the
name of the appellants within a period of one month from this
date initially for a period of six months which shall be renewed
from time to time until further orders of the High Court or till
the disposal of the writ petition whichever is earlier.
[b] The interest that would accrue on the aforesaid sum
shall be permitted to be withdrawn without furnishing any
security or without furnishing bank guarantee by the
appellants but the principal amount to be invested as a fixed
deposit in the Bank shall not be withdrawn by the appellants
till the disposal of the writ petition or until further orders of the
High Court.
[c] It is not in dispute that the amount awarded has already
been deposited in the High Court, which is now lying. We are
also informed that the amount has already been invested by
the High Court. If the amount has already been deposited in a
Fixed Deposit and any interest has already been accrued, the
High Court is directed to release the interest amount out of the
amount already deposited as a Fixed Deposit in favour of the
appellant.
[d] However, the High Court is requested to dispose of the
pending writ petition within a period of three months from the
date of supply of copy of this order, without granting any
unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
5. Accordingly, we modify the interim order of the High
court in the above manner. The appeal is thus disposed of. No
order as to costs.