Disposed¶27

Laxmikant Vitthal Mahajan v. the Ex. Engineer, Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag Jalgaon and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2025CA/5484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of deposited compensation with interest in pending First Appeals (FA/799/2022, FA/798/2022) before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:14200; decided 08.05.2025 by Neeraj P. Dhote, J. Acquiring Body deposited 100% of award amount; Court followed its order dated 12.04.2019 in Civil Application No.4291 of 2019 (connected appeal, same acquisition) to cap claimants' withdrawal at 75% inclusive of ~10% already withdrawn before the Reference Court; conditions: solvent surety/security for 25%, undertaking to Registrar (Judicial) for balance, disclosure of all past withdrawals with dates. Keywords: land acquisition compensation, Reference Court deposit, withdrawal application, solvent surety, undertaking, Registrar (Judicial), orig. claimants.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Applications by the original claimants stand disposed of with liberty to withdraw up to a total of 75% of the amount deposited by the Acquiring Body (inclusive of amounts already withdrawn), subject to furnishing Solvent Surety / Security for 25% and a regular undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) for the balance, along with full details of past withdrawals at the time of withdrawal.

2.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicants that in First Appeals preferred by the Acquiring Body, the Acquiring Body has deposited 100% amount under the Award. He submits that in the connected Appeal arising out of the same acquiring proceedings, this

Court by order dated 12.04.2019 in group of applications, one of which is Civil Application No.4291 of 2019, has permitted the Claimants therein to withdraw the entire 75% amount, which was deposited by the Acquiring Body, along with the interest accrued thereon. He submits that the Applications may be allowed.

3.The Applications are opposed by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body. He submits that, in the aforesaid matters, in which the withdrawal was permitted by the aforesaid order the deposit was 75% of the compensation under the Award and in the case on hand, the Acquiring Body has deposited the entire 100% amount and therefore, the said order would not be of any assistance to the Applicants. He submits that the Applicants have withdrawn some amount which was deposited by the Acquiring Body before the Reference Court. He further submits that, if at all this Court allows the Application, the Applicants will not give entire details before the Registry in respect of the amount withdrawn by them uptil now.

before the Reference Court. According to the learned Advocate for the Applicants, the said withdrawal was only upto 10%. The order which is relied by the learned Advocate for the Applicants shows that the Acquiring Body had deposited 75% amount and the Claimant therein was permitted to withdraw the entire 75% amount, against usual undertaking for 50% amount and against surety / security for 25% amount. Since the withdrawal was permitted in connected Appeal arising out of the same acquisition proceedings, the Applicants can be permitted to withdraw total 75% amount (including the amount already withdrawn i.e. the withdrawal shall not exceed 75%). The Applicants shall furnish Solvent Surety / Security against withdrawal of 25% amount and for remaining amount the Applicants shall furnish regular undertaking to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The Applicants shall furnish entire details with dates at the time of the withdrawal before the concerned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as to how much amount they have withdrawn.

Laxmikant Vitthal Mahajan v. the Ex. Engineer, Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag Jalgaon and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmikant Vitthal Mahajan v. the Ex. Engineer, Laghu Patbandhare Vibhag Jalgaon and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anchal Gaikwad Anchal Malli W/O Narayan Gaikwad vs State of Maha Thr Pso Durgapur Tq.and Dist. Chandrapur and Another

Chimaji Babu Dhone and Anr. Vs the Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr the Div. Manager, Nashik and Anr.

Shushilabai Honsing Patil (Died) Mahendra and Ors. Vs the Collector through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon

Rupesh Kishan Kove Vs Gajanan Uattamrao Zunjare

Municipal Council Tuljapur Thr the Chief Officer, Tuljapur Vs Chandrakant S/O Shankar Zadpide and Ors.

Kashinath Shivram Dahiwade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Osmanabad and Ors.