Disposed

Shailash Puranmal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ohters

Bombay HC10 Jun 2021WP/497/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw a portion of the enhanced land compensation awarded by an arbitrator, calculated based on average sale prices under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The withdrawal was conditional on furnishing an undertaking to refund the amount if the respondent successfully challenges the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw Rs. 45,00,000/- calculated at Rs. 410/- per sq. metre of the enhanced award, subject to an undertaking to refund if the Section 34 application succeeds.

Shailash Puranmal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

WP 497.2021.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

901 WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2021

¶5

SHAILASH PURANMAL AGRAWAL

¶6

VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kale Ajeet B. AGP for Respondent 1: Mr. S K Tambe Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. R R Bangar Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. Manorkar D.S.

¶8

CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J. Dated: June 10, 2021

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

Heard fnalll with the consent of parties at admission stage.

¶11

The petitioner’s land is acquired bl the respondent no.3 for the purpose of widening of the National Highwal no.3. Accordingll, compensation @ Rs.458/per square meter was determined for the acquired land. Being aggrieved bl the inadequacl of the amount of compensation, the petitioner has fled an application to enhance the compensation under section 3-G (5) of the National Highwals Act, 1956 before the Arbitrator appointed bl the Central Government. The Arbitrator aaa/-

¶12

2 WP 497.2021.odt

¶13

has passed an award dated 24.6.2019 enhancing the compensation from Rs.458/- per square meter to Rs.2269/- per square meter.

¶14

Being aggrieved bl the said award passed bl the Arbitrator, respondent no.3 National Highwals Authoritl of India has fled an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bearing Civil M.A. No.15 of 2020, which is pending before the District Court, Nandurbar for adjudication. Meanwhile, the petitioner has fled the Regular Darkhast No.47 of 2019 for execution of the said award passed bl the Arbitrator. Pending Darkhast, the petitioner has sought withdrawal of the compensation amount as enhanced bl the Arbitrator. It is not disputed that the respondent no.3 the National High Wals Authoritl of India has deposited the entire amount under the enhanced award as passed bl the Arbitrator on 23.10.2020. In the pending Darkhast the petitioner has fled an application for withdrawal of the compensation as deposited before the Executing Court and bl order dated 31.10.2020 the

¶15

aaa/-

¶16

3 WP 497.2021.odt

¶17

Executing Court has directed that the entire amount be paid to the applicant on his due identifcation. Meanwhile, in the pending application Civil M.A. No.15 of 2020 preferred bl the respondent no.3-the National High Wals Authoritl of India, the learned Principal District Judge, Nandurbar bl order dated 25.11.2020 below exhibit 5 has staled the operation and execution of the award passed bl the Arbitrator dated 24.6.2019

¶18

till disposal of the main application. Consequentll, though the Executing Court in pending Darkhast permitted the petitioner to withdraw the entire amount, on 26.11.2020 below Exhibit-1 in Regular Darkhast No.47 of 2019 has staled the earlier order of withdrawal, and further directed that the amount be kept in Fixed Deposit in anl Nationalized Bank for a period of three months till further order.

¶19

Learned counsel Mr. Kale appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner’s land has been acquired for widening of the National High Wal and he has been granted

¶20

aaa/-

¶21

4 WP 497.2021.odt

¶22

compensation @ Rs.458/- per square meters for the acquired land. Though, the Arbitrator has enhanced the amount of compensation bl passing an award dated 24.6.2019, the respondent no.3-National High Wals Authoritl of India has fled an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 solell on the ground that the Arbitrator has enhanced the compensation exorbitantll. Learned counsel submits that the Arbitrator has considered the enhanced rate awarded in the similar matters for the agricultural lands situated in village Kothada, Tq. Nawapur, District Nandurbar and the rate as fxed for agricultural lands having NA Potentials being adjacent to the National High Wal has considered bl him as a basis for awarding the enhanced compensation. Learned counsel Mr. Kale further submits that the petitioner is readl to give solvent suretl/bank guarantee as directed bl this Court and the petitioner mal be permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation. In the alternate, learned counsel Mr. Kale submits that, at least, the petitioner mal be permitted to withdraw the amount to

¶23

aaa/-

¶24

5 WP 497.2021.odt

¶25

the extent, not disputed bl respondent no.3- the National High Wals Authoritl of India.

¶26

Learned counsel Mr. Manorkar appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the learned Arbitrator has considered the provisions of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awarded the compensation at the

¶27

enhanced rate bl considering the earlier awards. Learned counsel Mr. Manorkar submits that in those earlier awards, single sale instance was considered, which is permitted in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and ignored the provisions of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencl in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’). Learned counsel submits that though the Arbitrator has discussed the average sale price for the similar tlpe of the lands situated in the nearest vicinitl/area, however, failed to award the compensation at the enhanced rate as per the average sale price. Consequentll, the learned Arbitrator has awarded exorbitant amount of

aaa/-

WP 497.2021.odt

compensation, which respondent no.3 has challenged bl fling an application under section 34 of the Act of 1996. Learned counsel submits that, if this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount to the extent as discussed bl the Arbitrator on the basis of the average sale price for the similar tlpe of land, in that event, the petitioner mal be directed to furnish bank guarantee.

¶32

Learned counsel Mr. Kale appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the amount of enhanced compensation on average sale price which has been discussed bl the Arbitrator in the award and the same is permitted to be withdrawn bl the petitioner, there is no reason to direct the petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee.

¶33

I have carefulll gone through the contents of the petition and the award passed bl the Arbitrator. In paragraph no.8 of the award, the learned Arbitrator has prepared a chart of the sale transaction and, accordingll, discussed about the average of the highest

¶34

aaa/-

¶35

7 WP 497.2021.odt

¶36

50% of the sales transaction, which is 868 per square meter. Even, the learned Arbitrator has discussed and observed that the rate of Rs.458/- per square meter awarded bl the CALA (Competent Authoritl Land Acquisition) for non agricultural land is incorrect and unjustifable which needs to be corrected.

¶37

Prima facie, it appears that in terms of the provisions of Section 26 clause (b) of the Act of 2013 the average sale price for similar tlpe of land situated in nearest village or nearest vicinitl area are required to be considered, however, the same is qualifed bl explanation no.1. It is for the learned District Judge to consider the same at the appropriate stage while deciding the application Civil M.A.No.15 of 2020, however, in ml considered opinion, no prejudice is likell to be caused if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount to the extent in terms of clause (b) of Section 26 of the Act of 2013. The respondent no.2/ Competent Authoritl has determined the compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.458/- per square meter.

¶38

aaa/-

¶39

8 WP 497.2021.odt

¶40

However, the Arbitrator has awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.2269/- per square meter. Thus, the difference comes out to be Rs.2269 - Rs.458 (as awarded bl the competent authoritl) = Rs.1811/- per square meter. The Arbitrator has thus directed the respondents to pal the compensation for acquired area @ Rs.1811/- per square meter. Accordingll, respondent no.3-National High Wals Authoritl has deposited an amount of Rs.1,59,51,223/- (Rs. One Crore Fiftl Nine Lakhs Fiftl One Thousand Two Hundred and Twentl Three) before the Executing Court. Thus, the petitioner, if permitted to withdraw the amount to the extent in terms of provisions of Clause (b) of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner would get the amount @ Rs.410/per sq. mtr. Undisputedll, said amount comes to Rs.47,90,999/-. The petitioner is thus permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- Lakhs (Rs.Fortl Five Lakhs onll) bl furnishing an undertaking to the effect that, in case, if the respondent National High Wals Authoritl succeeds in the pending application bearing Civil M.A. No.15 of 2020 fled under section 34

¶41

aaa/-

¶42

9 WP 497.2021.odt

¶43

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner would refund the said amount to the Respondent no.3.

¶44

It is herebl made clear that this Court in anl manner has not considered the merits of the Application Civil MA No.15 of 2020 fled under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act bl respondent no.3 herein, which is pending before the District Court, Nandurbar. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the aforesaid amount without prejudice to the rights of the parties to the litigation and, it is for the learned District Judge to consider and decide the said application Civil M.A.No.15 of 2020 on its own merits, without getting influenced bl the observations made bl this Court, particularll, bl referring the provisions of Section 26 (b) of the Act of 2013.

¶45

I hope and expect that the learned Principal District Judge will dispose off the said application Civil

¶46

aaa/-

¶47

10 WP 497.2021.odt

¶48

MA No.15 of 2020, as expeditiousll as possible, at the earliest.

¶49

Writ Petition is accordingll disposed off.

¶50

( V.K. JADHAV, J. )

¶51

aaa/-

Shailash Puranmal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ohters

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailash Puranmal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ohters

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

Meenakshi Uttamrao Rathod and Others Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer Nagar and Others

Yusuf Shah Nimud Shah Fakir and Others Vs Ld. Commissioner Nashik Division and Others

Yusuf Shah Nimud Shah Fakir and Others Vs Ld Commissioner and Others

Omprakash Ramji Dasarwar Vs Chief Executive Officer Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Mumbai and Others

Prathviraj Vijay Dandnaik Vs Union of India Thr Ministry of Finance and Others

Omprakash Ramji Dasarwar Vs Chief Executive Officer Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Mumbai and Others