Disposed

Kakasaheb Hasanrao Shinde v. Ex. Engineer, Nimna Dudhana Project Selu and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2018CA/8751/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that grant of interest under Section 34 is prima facie wrong and cannot be withdrawn. It allowed 75% payment of deposited amount excluding Section 34 interest upon undertaking, directing entitlement to rental compensation from possession date to Award date.

What did the court decide?

75% amount paid upon undertaking; balance 25% upon solvent sureties; interest under Section 34 excluded from withdrawal permission.

Kakasaheb Hasanrao Shinde Vs Ex. Engineer, Nimna Dudhana… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

{1} 915CA8708-18 & Ors.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8708 OF 2018 IN FAST/35491/2016

¶4

Annasaheb Hasanrao Shinde and Ors.

¶5

Versus Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhana Project Selu an Ors.

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Kumar Gaurav M. More, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. B.R. Surwase AGP for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S.N. Morampalle

¶8

WITH CA/8709/2018 IN FAST/35485/2016 WITH CA/8710/2018 IN FAST/37600/2016 WITH CA/8711/2018 IN FAST/37423/2016 WITH CA/8712/2018 IN FAST/37420/2016 WITH CA/8713/2018 IN FAST/37338/2016 WITH CA/8714/2018 IN FAST/35567/2016 WITH CA/8715/2018 IN FAST/37334/2016 WITH CA/8716/2018 IN FAST/37429/2016 WITH CA/8717/2018 IN FAST/37603/2016 WITH CA/8718/2018 IN FAST/37597/2016 WITH CA/8719/2018 IN FAST/35465/2016 WITH CA/8720/2018 IN FAST/35494/2016 WITH CA/8721/2018 IN FAST/35488/2016 WITH CA/8723/2018 IN FAST/35497/2016 WITH CA/8750/2018 IN FA/1839/2017 WITH CA/8751/2018 IN FA/1834/2017 WITH CA/8752/2018 IN FA/1841/2017

¶9

CORAM : A.M. DHAVALE,J.

¶10

DATE: 27^th JULY, 2018

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

The learned advocate for the applicants submits that

¶13

{2} 915CA8708-18 & Ors.

¶14

the respondent No.1/appellant has deposited amount and the court has granted stay to the execution of the award/decree. He submits that the entire amount is not deposited while learned advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that entire amount has been deposited in this court.

¶15

The applicants-original claimants have filed present applications for withdrawal of the amount. The advocate for the applicants submits that in similar matters arising out of the same award, permission is granted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶16

Learned advocate for the respondent No.1/appellant relies on the Full Bench Judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari to submit that payment of interest both under section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are not permissible, and therefore, those amounts should not be permitted to be withdrawn.

¶17

Learned advocate for respondent No.1 submits that the deposited amount is only with regard to the interest

¶18

{3} 915CA8708-18 & Ors.

¶19

under section 28 and not under section 34. The parties shall submit statement of calculation and amount deposited.

¶20

I find that grant of interest both under sections 28 and 34 is, prima facie , wrong. Therefore, if any amount of interest is deposited under section 34, it cannot be permitted to be withdrawn.

¶21

It is argued that since possession was taken after the notification, but before the Award, the applicants/original claimants are entitled for interest only from the date of Award. I find that the applicants/original claimants would be entitled for rental compensation from the date of possession till the date of Award. Hence, I direct as follows :-

¶22

(i) Out of the deposited amount excluding the interest under section 34, 75% amount shall be paid to the applicants/original claimants on undertaking and the balance 25 % shall be paid on furnishing solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

¶23

(ii) If the interest under section 34 is not deposited, the entire amount will be paid as above.

¶24

{4} 915CA8708-18 & Ors.

¶25

Civil Applications stand disposed of as above.

¶26

( A.M.DHAVALE, J )

¶27

mta

Kakasaheb Hasanrao Shinde v. Ex. Engineer, Nimna Dudhana Project Selu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakasaheb Hasanrao Shinde v. Ex. Engineer, Nimna Dudhana Project Selu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukhminibai Ramkishanrao Bobade and Others. Vs Syed Hanif Syed Faijoddin and Others.

Vimalbai Jagan Mahajan and Anr. Vs Satish Anantrao Patil and Anr.

Dhondiba Govind Shelke (Died) Thr Lrs Kishabai and Ors. Vs Chief Officer / Ex. Engineer, M.I.D.C, Latur and Ors.

Dattatraya Sudhakarrao Deshpande Vs Ambajogai Peoples Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Thr Its Chairman Rajkishor K Modi and Ors.

Rambhau Shamrao Ghandge Vs Ex. Engineer, Nimna Dudhana Project Selu and Ors.

Bandu Ganpati Bhadarge Vs Ex. Engineer, Nimna Dudhana Project Selu and Ors.