Disposed

Dhiraj Manik Gate @ Dhanraj and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2021CA/8071/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil application regarding land acquisition, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad permitted the withdrawal of 70% of the deposited amount, subject to furnishing an undertaking, solvent surety, and directing the registry to invest the balance, pending the outcome of the pending appeal challenging the acquisition award.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw 70% of the deposited amount: 50% on undertaking, 20% on solvent surety; balance 30% to be invested in FDs.

Dhiraj Manik Gate @ Dhanraj and Anr. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

ca8071.20.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8071 OF 2020 IN FA/871/2020

¶5

1] DHIRAJ MANIK GATE

¶6

@ DHANRAJ S/O MANIKRAO GATE

¶7

2] SAMBHAJI S/O MANIK GATE ...APPLICANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr L.C. Patil, Advocate for the applicants; Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent no. 1; Mr. R.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent no. 3

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.

¶12

DATE : 29-01-2021

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

This is an application whereby the applicants / claimants are seeking to withdraw the amount deposited in this court by the acquiring body, viz. the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Osmanabad, pursuant to acquisition of agricultural land of the applicants.

¶16

The acquiring body has fled First appeal No.871 of 2020 before this court challenging the judgment and common order dated 5^th July, 2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge

¶17

{2}

¶18

ca8071.20.odt

¶19

Senior Division, Osmanabad, in LAR No. 500 of 2012, on the grounds mentioned therein.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the acquiring body submits that the judgment and common order is contrary to the Full Bench decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

¶21

It is noted from the record that earlier, this Court, vide order dated 29^th January, 2020 has stayed the impugned judgment and award as the entire amount has been deposited in this Court by the acquiring body.

¶22

On the other hand, the applicants / claimants submit that the appeal fled by the acquiring body is devoid of merit as the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law. It is submitted that the applicants are agriculturists and are in need of funds and, therefore, seek withdrawal of the entire amount upon the usual terms and conditions.

¶23

Learned counsel for the acquiring body opposes the application, submitting that only some percentage amount of the said amount may be permitted to be withdrawn and that too, on furnishing of bank guarantee.

¶24

{3}

¶25

ca8071.20.odt

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in similar matters, this Court has permitted withdrawal of 75% of the amount on furnishing of undertaking / solvent surety in respect of the amount withdrawn.

¶27

On consideration of the above submissions and considering that the condition of furnishing of bank guarantee may be difcult and onerous upon the claimants/applicants who are submitted to be agriculturists, withdrawal of the amount to the extent of 70% of the amount deposited be permitted to be withdrawn as under :

¶28

i) 50% amount permitted to be withdrawn on furnishing of undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, to the efect that in the event the judgment and award dated 5^th July, 2013 is set aside or modifed, they shall re-deposit the same within six weeks from the date of passing of such order by this Court.

¶29

ii) The applicants are permitted to withdraw 20% of the amount deposited with this Court on furnishing of solvent surety of the said amount, to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

¶30

{4}

¶31

ca8071.20.odt

¶32

iii) Registry is directed to invest the balance amount of 30% in fxed deposit(s) in any nationalized bank for a period of six months and keep re-investing the same from time to time, subject to the orders of this Court or till the fnal disposal of the appeal.

¶33

iv) The amount to be paid to the applicants would be transferred to their savings accounts on furnishing of the details of their bank accounts to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

¶34

v) Payment of withdrawal is subject to the outcome of the pending appeal.

¶35

Civil application is disposed of in above terms.

¶36

(ABHAY AHUJA) JUDGE

¶37

amj

Dhiraj Manik Gate @ Dhanraj and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Manik Gate @ Dhanraj and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harihar Rustum Wanje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Hamid Ahmed Kanche and 3 Ors.

Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Hamid Ahmed Kanche and 3 Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co., Thr Its Manager, Aurangabad Vs Rukhmin Shankar Ghavle and Ors.

Tatyasaheb Maroti Gund Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gulab Mehaboob @ Mahbub Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.