Disposed

Balaappa Eknath Sadavarte and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Aug 2023WP/4281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued directions freezing specific Fixed Deposit Receipts for an ongoing civil dispute between applicants and original claimants. The court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the apportionment dispute to the civil court, ordered release of remaining funds, and penalized vexatious litigation. Writ petitions and civil applications were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to freeze specific FDRs for pending civil claimants, release remaining funds, and refer apportionment dispute to civil court under Section 19C(4) Maharashtra Highways Act.

Balaappa Eknath Sadavarte and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

99wp4281a12984o22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4281 OF 2022

¶5

Balaappa Eknath Sadavarte And Others VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶7

Mr. Bhandari Anand P., Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 4.

¶8

¶9

WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10189 OF 2022 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.4281 OF 2022

¶12

Vijaya Ashokrao Amle And Another

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

Balaappa Eknath Sadavarte And Others

¶15

Mr.Palodkar Devdatt P., Advocate for the Applicants.

¶16

¶17

WITH

¶18

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15420 OF 2022 IN

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.4281 OF 2022

¶20

Balaappa Eknath Sadavarte And Others

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others

¶23

Mr.Bhandari Anand P., Advocate for the Applicants. Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 4

2 99wp4281a12984o22

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.12984 OF 2022

¶28

Vijaya Ashokrao Amle And Another VERSUS

¶29

The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others

¶30

Mr. Palodkar Devdatt P., Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Bhandari Anand P., Advocate for Respondents 5 to 8.

¶31

Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for the Respondents/ State in all matters.

¶32

¶33

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶34

DATE :- 02^nd August, 2023

¶35

Per Court :-

¶36

On 15.06.2022, we had passed the following order

¶37

in Writ Petition No.4281/2022:-

¶38

“1. The petitioners have putforth prayer clauses B & C as under :

¶39

B) By appropriate writ order of direction, the impugned communication dated 16.06.2021 (Exhibit G) issued by the Deputy Collector and Administrator of Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., thereby withholding the amount of petitioners, lying in accounts and FDRs (Annexed with Exhibit G) with Respondent No. 5 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶40

C) By a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction, the respondent

¶41

3 99wp4281a12984o22

¶42

No. 2 and 5 may kindly be directed to release the amounts of Petitioners, in the accounts maintained with the respondent No. 5 Bank.

¶43

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 14th July, 2022, in the urgent admission category.

¶44

The learned A.G.P. waives service of notice, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶45

Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4.”

¶46

Today, these matters were extensively argued. Thereafter, the learned Advocates for the respective sides, sought a pass over to take instructions.

¶47

By consent of the parties, the following directions are issued:-

¶48

(a) Out of the seven Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of

¶49

the Petitioners, which are frozen (list is set out at page 59 of the petition paper book), the following FDRs shall be continued to be frozen along with accrued interest, which would cater the claim of the two Applicants in Civil Application No.10189/2022, in the event they succeed before the Trial Court:-

¶50

Sr.	Name	Account No.	Amount (Rs.)
No.
1.	Ashabai Bhaudappa Sadavarte	TDR/STDR 39860377399	25,00,000/-

¶51

4 99wp4281a12984o22

¶52

2.	Subhashappa Sadavarte	TDR/STDR 37527427179	20,00,000/-
3.	Balappa E. Sadavarte	TDR/STDR 38160804280	9,58,246/-
4.	Balappa E. Sadavarte	TDR/STDR 38022477089	30,00,000/-

¶53

(b) The remaining amounts/FDRs as set out at page 59

¶54

of the petition paper book, shall be released along with interest, without any embargo.

¶55

(c) Section 19C(4) of the Maharashtra Highways Act provides for the Land Acquisition Officer (i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagpur- Mumbai Samruddhi Mahamarg in this case) to refer the dispute as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. As such, by consent of the parties, the said Land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer the dispute to the concerned Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

¶56

(d) All contentions of the litigating parties are kept open only to the extent of 84 R land in the light of the dispute raised by the two intervention Applicants.

¶57

(e) For the sake of clarity, the compensation for the acquired land after subtracting 84 R land from 2H 29 Gunthas

¶58

5 99wp4281a12984o22

¶59

57 square meters, would stand apportioned to the original Claimants.

¶60

(f) After the competent Court delivers it’s verdict in the dispute referred to it under Section 19C(4) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, it shall independently decide as to whether, the two Applicants, namely, Vijaya Ashokrao Amle and Rajesh Ashokrao Amle, had put forth a vexatious dispute and if it is concluded in the affirmative, these two Applicants would be liable to pay costs to the original Claimants equivalent to the rate of interest admissible on the amount of Rs.84,58,246/- along with accrued interest, to be calculated w.e.f. 16.06.2021 till the decision of the competent Court. This analogy would apply even if the competent Court comes to the conclusion that the original Claimants have vexatiously deprived the said two Applicants of their share of 84 R land, in which case, the original Claimants would pay the interest/ costs from the date the amount was payable till 16.06.2021.

¶61

(g) Let the concerned Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, to whom the dispute is referred, decide the same within 18 (eighteen) months from the date of institution of the dispute.

¶62

6 99wp4281a12984o22

¶63

In view of the above, both the Writ Petitions are

¶64

disposed off .

¶65

The pending Civil Applications would not survive and stand disposed off .

¶66

kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

Balaappa Eknath Sadavarte and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaappa Eknath Sadavarte and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Deepak Dyaneshwar Shinde Vs Mohini Deepak Shinde

Harisingh Umraosingh Rajput and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others

Sumanbai Vaman Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Surendrajitsingh Gurboxsingh Sabharwal Vs Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Satyendra Shivram Jindam Vs Jayshree @ Pushpa Satyendra Jinda

Satyendra Shivram Jindam Vs Jayshree @ Pushpa Satyendra Jinda