Disposed

Eknath Jayaram Sonone v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2004CAF/1310/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted interim protection to the appellant from eviction pending an appeal against a de-requisition order. The appellant was directed to pay Rs.400/- monthly as compensation to the respondents, subject to deposit conditions, without prejudice to the final outcome of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant protected from eviction if Rs.400/- per month is deposited in court; relief vacated upon two consecutive defaults.

Eknath Jayaram Sonone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1310 OF 2004

¶3

 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2004

¶4

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda
of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s order
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri N.R. Bubra, Advocate for
 Appellants.
 Shri K.K. Tated, AGP for State.
 Shri P.N. Joshi, Advocate for
 Respondents.

¶5

CORAM: A.S. OKA, J.
 12th August, 2004.
P.C.:
 1. Rule. Advocate for
 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 waives
 service. Taken up for hearing
 forthwith.
 2. The suit premises consists
 of 2 rooms admeasuring 200 sq.ft.
 situated at Lalbaug, Dr. Ambedkar
 Road, Bombay-12. The suit
 premises were requisitioned by the
 State Government under the Bombay

¶6

 Land Requisition Act, 1948 (herein

¶7

 after referred to as the said

¶8

 Act). The Appellant being the

¶9

 State Government employee was
 allowed to occupy the suit
 premises. Prima-facie it appears

¶10

 that after the order of

¶11

 de-requisition was passed, due to
 some delay on the part of the
 State Government, the said order
 was not implemented. As a result,
 the Appellant continued to occupy

¶12

 the suit premises. Now the
 Appellant is claiming protection
 under the amended provisions of
 the said Act of 1948. Only a sum
 of Rs.43/- is being paid per month
 by the Appellant. If the
 Appellant is desirous of

¶13

 continuing in possession, he has

¶14

 to pay a reasonable amount by way
 of compensation to the Respondent

¶15

 Nos.4 and 5 subject to final
 result of the Appeal. In my view,
 considering the facts and
 circumstances of the case, the
 Appellant will have to pay a sum
 of Rs.400/- per month from 1st
 March, 2004 to the Respondent Nos.
 4 and 5 till the final disposal of
 the Appeal.

¶16

 3. Hence, Civil Application

¶17

 is dismissed by passing following

¶18

 order :

¶19

 (i) The Appellant shall not be
 evicted from the suit premises
 till the final disposal of the
 Appeal subject to :

¶20

 (a) The Appellant
 depositing in the Trial
 Court, a sum of Rs.400/-
 per month from 1st March,
 2004 till 31st August,2004
 within a period of four
 weeks from today.

¶21

 (b) The Appellant
 depositing a sum of Rs.
 400/- per month in the
 City Civil Court on or
 before the tenth day of
 every calendar month.

¶22

 (ii) If the Appellant fails to
 pay the amounts as per clause (a)
 above, the interim relief will
 stand automatically vacated. In
 the event, the Appellant commits
 any two consecutive defaults in
 depositing sum of Rs.400/-p.m.,
 Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 will be

¶23

 entitled to apply to this court

¶24

 for vacating the interim relief.

¶25

 (iii) As and when the amounts
 are deposited by the Appellant,
 liberty to Respondents Nos. 4 and
 5 to withdraw the said amounts.
 It is made clear that deposit of
 the said amounts by the Appellant
 and withdrawal of the said amounts
 by the Respondents No. 4 and 5
 shall be without prejudice to the
 rights and contentions of the
 parties and subject to final
 result of the Appeal.

¶26

 (iv) Till the final disposal of
 the Appeal, the Appellant is
 restrained from creating any third
 party interests in respect of the
 suit premises and from parting
 with the possession of the suit
 premises to any third party.

¶27

 (v) There will be no orders as
 to costs.

¶28

JUDGE

Eknath Jayaram Sonone v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eknath Jayaram Sonone v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamad Hanif H. Mashal and Others. Vs Chitabsab M. Mashal and Antothers.

Shri Sidram Irappa Mali Vs Shri Anantbhat Balbhat Joshi and Others

Shri Madhavrao Anandrao Khaire Vs Shri Sudam Laxman Khaire and Others

1A. Smt. Gayabai W/O Sampat Dhomse and Ors. Vs Karbhari Mahadu Khole and Ors.

Jamunabai Bhalchandra Bhoir Vs Moreshwar Mukund Bhoir

Pandurang Ganpat Shinde Vs Vitthoba Ganpat Shinde and Anr.