Partly allowed

Umarkher Bashir Pathan v. the Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2017CA/2572/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil application partly, permitting the applicant to withdraw 50% of deposited compensation immediately. The remaining 50% must be invested in a fixed deposit, with the applicant filing an undertaking soon.

What did the court decide?

Permitted withdrawal of 50% of deposited compensation immediately; balance to be invested in fixed deposit for three years with undertaking to be filed.

Umarkher Bashir Pathan Vs the Regional Officer, Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ca2572.17

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2572 OF 2017 IN

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.1725 OF 2016

¶6

Umarkher w/o Bashir Pathan

¶7

..APPLICANT

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur & anr.

¶10

..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr Mahesh S. Patil, Advocate for applicant; Mr S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent no.2

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 19^th December, 2017

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

Heard Mr Mahesh Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant-original respondent no.1 in present First Appeal No.1725 of 2016. Mr Patil invited our attention to the order of this Court, dated 20^th November, 2015. While allowing the application for condonation of delay, this Court admitted the appeal. On the application seeking stay to the impugned judgment and order, this Court granted stay on condition of depositing the entire amount of compensation together with interest and other benefits, by order dated 20^th November, 2015. Mr Patil submitted that in compliance of the order of this Court, appellant – Corporation deposited amount of Rs.12,01,337/- on 1^st April, 2016, by way of Demand Draft No.540630. Mr Patil submits that the applicant is also challenging the award on the ground that an inadequate amount of compensation is

¶16

ca2572.17

¶17

(2)

¶18

granted to the applicant-claimant. Mr Patil submits that the applicant is a woman and having no other source of income, except the agricultural land which is acquired by way of compulsory acquisition. Mr Patil submits that as the applicant is having no other source of income and she is in her advanced age, is in urgent need of financial assistance to meet both the ends as well as for other necessary requirements, such as medical urgency, etc.

¶19

Mr Bhosale, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 opposes the application.

¶20

Considering the submissions of Mr Patil and in view of the grounds raised in the application, we allow the application partly.

¶21

The applicant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the appellant in this Court, in compliance of the order of this Court, dated 20^th November, 2015. The applicant to give an undertaking for 50% of the 50% amount permitted to be withdrawn and for the rest of 50% amount the applicant to submit the surety to the satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The undertaking be filed in this Court within six weeks from today.

¶22

Rest of the 50% amount be invested in fixed deposit in the Nationalised Bank initially for a period of three years and subsequently to be renewed from time to time.

¶23

ca2572.17

¶24

(3)

¶25

Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.)

¶27

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶28

amj

Umarkher Bashir Pathan v. the Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umarkher Bashir Pathan v. the Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissionr of Income Tax I Pune Vs Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ahmedngar

The Commissioner of Income Tax II Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Vs Shankuntala Sureschandra Sanghavi

Sulochana Purushottam Gindodiya Vs the Income Tax Officer Dhule and Another

Chandrakala Radhakishan Brijwasi, Died, Thr. L.Rs. Radhakishan Devkinandan Brijwasi and Ors. Vs the State of Mah, Thr. the Collector, Latur and Anr.

Ankita Bhimrao Chavan Vs Dr. Pravin Harishchandra Shingare and Another

Mahabubi Rasul Shaikh and Anr. Vs Jainuddin Mahatab Jamadar and Ors.