Dismissed

Hemant Jaywantrao Vaidyaand Anr. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through Divnl Officer Latur and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2014CA/1126/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench considered three similar appeals challenging orders restricting withdrawal of land acquisition compensation. Relying on prior Supreme Court directions and internal consistency, the court rejected petitions to withdraw the remaining half of deposited amounts.

What did the court decide?

All civil applications to permit withdrawal of the remaining 50% of deposited compensation amounts were rejected.

Hemant Jaywantrao Vaidyaand Anr. Vs Maharashtra Industrial… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

CA1126.12.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CA/1126/2012 IN FA/722/2010

¶5

HEMANT JAYANTRAO VAIDYA AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

WITH

¶8

CA/1125/2012 IN FA/727/2010

¶9

PANDHARINATH RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THORUGH REGIONAL MANAGER LATUR AND ANOTHER

¶12

WITH

¶13

CA/15883/2013 IN FA/2316/2010

¶14

LAXMAN MALAPPA CHAVAN

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

MIDC THROUGH DIVISIONAL/ REGIONAL OFFICER LATUR AND OTHERS.

¶17

Advocate for Appellants : Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar AGP for Respondent State : Mr.P.P.More/S.K.Kadam Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. S S Dande

¶18

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶19

Dated: April 25, 2014

¶20

PER COURT :-

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

¶22

He submits that, first appeals arising out of the same notification

¶23

CA1126.12.odt

¶24

¶25

filed by the present appellants approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the order passed by the High Court, thereby allowing the claimants to withdraw only 50% of the amount of total amount deposited by the Acquiring body. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 10583/2011 to 10587/2011 on 8.11.2011, in paragraph No.4 directed the opponent Respondent M.I.D.C to pay 50% amount of compensation by filing undertaking and 50% of the amount by furnishing security. Therefore, the counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, the claimants in the present appeal also may be allowed to withdraw remaining 50% amount which is deposited by the Respondent Acquiring Body in the Registry of this Court. Sum and substance of the argument of the counsel appearing for the applicant is that, the Supreme Court has allowed to withdraw total amount deposited by the Acquiring Body by furnishing undertaking for 50% amount and remaining 50% amount by security. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited our attention to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, and submits that even this

¶26

3 CA1126.12.odt

¶27

Court allowed the claimants therein to withdraw remaining 50%

¶28

amount. Therefore, he prays that though the claimants have withdrawn 50% amount in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, the applicants may be allowed to withdraw remaining 50%

¶29

amount.

¶30

Prayer of the applicant is vehemently opposed by the counsel appearing for the Acquiring Body by placing reliance on the order passed by this Court on 12.7.2013 in CA No.9624/2012 in FA 2804/2009. It is further submitted that, order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said application rejecting for withdrawal of remaining 50% amount, the claimants therein approached the Supreme Court of India, however, Supreme Court rejected the Special Leave Petition.

¶31

We have considered the submissions of the counsel appearing for the applicant and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent. While passing order allowing the claimants to withdraw 50% of the total amount deposited by the acquiring body, said order is passed keeping in view facts involved in the case. In our opinion, looking to the amount involved and facts of

¶32

4 CA1126.12.odt

¶33

the case and fact that we have to follow the consistency in passing

¶34

the order/s, and also keeping in view order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 12.7.2013 in Civil Application No. 9624/2012 in FA No.2804/2009, we are not inclined to entertain

¶35

the prayer of the applicants to permit them to withdraw remaining 50% amount. Hence, all civil applications stand rejected.

¶36

( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )

¶37

aaa/-

Hemant Jaywantrao Vaidyaand Anr. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through Divnl Officer Latur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Jaywantrao Vaidyaand Anr. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through Divnl Officer Latur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Trimbakrao Deshpande Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Hemant Raghunath Mahale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Renuka Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Beed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chanbasweshwar Manmath Sarafe Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kondbarao Maruti Deshmukhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Gyanoba Karbhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others