PANCHAYAT SAMITI SUDHAGAD PALI Vs. G R NAZIRKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was summarily dismissed by my brother Dhanuka, J. on 18-1-1994. The Court has passed a speaking order and granted stay of execution of the decree which was passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 upto 30-4-1994 on condition that the appellants deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 in this Court. It appears from the record that the appellants have encroached on the land belonging to the Respondent No. 1 and that they had negotiated with him for the purpose of paying compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000. The earlier order of my brother chavan, J. indicates that the Respondent No. 1 was not agreeable to this offer. Therefore, the appellants had decided to acquire the land in question and they were given three months time upto 30-4-1994 to complete the acquisition proceedings. It was made clear by this Court that the stay was conditional on the deposit of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 which the appellants have since deposited. The order further clarified that in the event of Respondent No. 1 desiring to withdraw the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 that he was required to make a written application to this Court and that the withdrawal would be without prejudice to the land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1 has applied in writing for permission to withdraw the amount Rs. 4,00,000. He has also filed the requisite receipt. The Office had placed the matter on board today for orders. Prior to the daily board being taken up, the Respondent No. 1 who appears in person, mentioned the matter and on the basis of my brother Dhanuka, J's order, he requested for formal permission to withdraw the amount in question. I accordingly issued a short direction to the effect that in keeping with the order, dated 18-1-1994, the office should permit the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the amount provided he furnishes a declaration/affidavit to the effect that the withdrawal was without prejudice to the pending acquisition proceedings. Some time later, Mr. Borulkar, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellants pointed out to me that the matter was on the daily board and that it ought not to have been taken up out of turn and in his absence. He stated that he wanted to make certain submissions in the matter. Learned Counsel is right with regard to what he submits and the earlier direction is therefore recalled and I have heard the parties.

(3.) THE Respondent No. 1 who is present in person submits that the amount deposited in Court must be released forthwith as the value of the land is well above Rs. 4,00,000 and that it is therefore unfair to keep the amount in Court for any period of time after the appeal has been dismissed by this Court. On the other hand, Mr. Borulkar's submission is that the value of the land is definitely below Rs. 4,00,000 and according to him in that event it would be improper to allow the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 which would be in excess of the compensation that may be awarded.