Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Jyoti Subhash Bhansale, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the learned District Judge-16, Pune dated 23/01/2012, which allowed her to withdraw the compensation amount of Rs.9,50,000 deposited by the respondent No.3 (Municipal Corporation) in Land Acquisition Reference No.152 of 2004, but subject to furnishing solvent surety. The petitioner's land was acquired for road widening under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared an award on 29/03/2004, fixing compensation at Rs.21,12,627. The petitioner sought a reference under Section 18, and the Reference Court passed an award on 22/10/2007, enhancing the market value. The respondent No.3 challenged this award by filing a First Appeal under Section 54, which was delayed by 697 days. The High Court rejected the condonation of delay on 3/5/2010, and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 18/2/2011, making the Reference Court's award final. The petitioner filed execution proceedings, and the respondent No.3 deposited the balance compensation of Rs.9,23,854, which was invested in a fixed deposit. The petitioner then applied for withdrawal of the amount. The District Judge allowed the application but imposed the condition of furnishing solvent surety. The petitioner challenged this condition. The High Court held that once the award has become final and binding, there is no justification for requiring solvent surety. The court noted that the acquiring body had already deposited the amount and the award was not under challenge. The condition of solvent surety was set aside, and the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the amount without any condition. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Withdrawal of Amount - Solvent Surety - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 18, 54 - Petitioner sought withdrawal of compensation deposited by acquiring body after award became final due to dismissal of SLP - District Judge allowed withdrawal but imposed condition of furnishing solvent surety - Held that once award attains finality, there is no justification for requiring solvent surety; condition set aside (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition of furnishing solvent surety for withdrawal of compensation amount is justified when the award has become final and binding after dismissal of SLP.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The condition of furnishing solvent surety imposed by the learned District Judge-16, Pune in the order dated 23/01/2012 is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.9,50,000 deposited by the respondent No.3 without any condition. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Withdrawal of Amount
- Solvent Surety
- Finality of Award
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (09) 42
Writ Petition No.7123 of 2012
Mr. Prashant D Jadhav for the Petitioner, Mr. A.I.Patel, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, Mr. R S Khadapkar for the Respondent No.3
Smt. Jyoti Subhash Bhansale
The Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune and ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging the condition of furnishing solvent surety imposed by the District Judge for withdrawal of compensation amount in land acquisition proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the condition requiring solvent surety for withdrawal of the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the District Judge allowing withdrawal of compensation only upon furnishing solvent surety, despite the award having become final.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court passed an award on 22/10/2007; the First Appeal was dismissed due to delay; the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18/2/2011, making the award final.
Issues
Whether the condition of furnishing solvent surety for withdrawal of compensation is justified when the award has become final and binding.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that since the award has become final after dismissal of SLP, there is no justification for requiring solvent surety.
The respondents opposed the petition, but the court found no merit in their opposition.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the award in land acquisition proceedings has become final and binding, there is no justification for imposing a condition of furnishing solvent surety for withdrawal of the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in the above Writ Petition is to the order dated 23/01/2012 passed by the learned District Judge-16, Pune by which order the Application filed by the Petitioner herein being Misc. Application No.209 of 2011 came to be allowed. Resultantly, the Petitioner was allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.9,50,000/- deposited by the Respondent No.3 in the Trial Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.152 of 2004, however, the same was made subject to the Petitioner furnishing solvent surety for the said amount.
In my view, once the Award of the Reference Court has become final and binding, there is no justification for the learned District Judge to have imposed the condition of furnishing solvent surety.
Procedural History
The land acquisition award was declared on 29/03/2004. The petitioner sought a reference under Section 18, and the Reference Court passed an award on 22/10/2007. The acquiring body filed a First Appeal under Section 54, which was delayed by 697 days; the High Court rejected the condonation of delay on 3/5/2010. The SLP against that order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18/2/2011. The petitioner filed execution proceedings, and the acquiring body deposited the balance compensation. The petitioner applied for withdrawal, which was allowed by the District Judge on 23/01/2012 subject to furnishing solvent surety. The petitioner challenged this condition in the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18, Section 54
