1 wp-8371.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8371 OF 2011 Sau Mandabai Pundalik Rao and anr. : Petitioners versus Shri Punalik Mahadu Rao : Respondent. Mr.S S Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mr. Pundalik Mahadu Rao Respondent present in person in Court. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 22nd December 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20/8/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-4 Nashik by which order the objection filed by the Petitioners against the withdrawal of the amount of compensation by the Respondent herein came to be rejected. 2 The amount in question which is lying in deposit with the District Court, Nashik, is the amount which has been deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which constitutes enhanced compensation for the lands acquired from the family of the Respondent. It appears that the said enhanced compensation has been granted in First Appeal No.2515 of 2006 which has been decided along with the Cross Objection No.2537 of 2007 and other connected matters by this Court by its judgment and order dated 31/1/2008 which information can be gathered from Para 2 of the Application filed by the 2 wp-8371.11.sxw Respondent herein for withdrawal. The amount which has been deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the District Court, Nashik are three amounts i.e. Rs.5,15,240/-, Rs.65,202/- and Rs.1,84,441/- which is the enhanced compensation for the lands in question. 3 It is required to be noted that the Petitioners herein had initiated proceedings against the Respondent by invoking Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said proceedings, as can be seen from the record of the above Petition, have culminated into the order dated 12/6/1999 by which order the Respondent herein was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to the Petitioner No.1 from the date of the said Application and, Rs. 200/- per month to the Petitioner No.2 from the date of the said Application till her marriage. In so far as compliance of the said order is concerned, though the Petitioner No.2 herein is now married, the Respondent has hardly paid any amount to the Petitioner No.1 over the years, and thereby has not complied with the said order dated 12/6/1999. 4 The record discloses that the Petitioner No.1 has also filed Special Civil Suit No.498 of 2011 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for claiming permanent alimony of Rs.10,000/- per month along with arrears of the permanent alimony for last three years amounting to Rs.3,60,000/-. A relief has been sought in the said proceedings that the Respondent should be restrained from withdrawing the amount of 3 wp-8371.11.sxw compensation which has been deposited in the District Court, Nashik towards acquisition of the lands bearing Gat Nos.877, 904 and 1085. The said proceedings are as yet pending. 5 Since the amount which has been deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer were to be disbursed by the District Court, the Petitioners had filed an Application objecting to the payment of the share of the Respondent out of the said amounts to him in the background of the aforesaid facts. It is not necessary to burden this order with other details, suffice it to say that the said objections filed by the Petitioners were rejected on the ground that the Petitioners have no locus in so far as the said amounts are concerned, as they are not interested parties who can object to the disbursal of the said amounts. As indicated above, the trial Court has rejected the said objections by the impugned order. 6 In so far as the order of the trial Court is concerned, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the trial Court. In so far as observation that the Petitioners are required to be approach the appropriate court and obtain necessary orders against the disbursal of the said amounts to the Respondent, it is, therefore, no necessary for this Court to set aside the impugned order as the District Court has granted liberty to the Petitioners to approach the appropriate Court in respect of their grievance against disbursal of the amounts to the Respondent. 4 wp-8371.11.sxw 7 However what is required to be clarified is that though the District Court whilst rejecting the said application has observed that the Petitioners are not the interested persons. The said observation, in my view, would have to taken in the context of an “interested person” under the Land Acquisition Act and not qua the interest that the Petitioners may have in the property of the Respondent. Hence without interfering with the impugned order, the Petitioners in terms of the impugned order would be entitled to approach the appropriate Court for redressal of their grievance in respect of withdrawal of the amount of his share by the Respondent from the amount of compensation which is lying in deposit in the District Court Nashik. If the said application/applications is/are filed by the Petitioners, it would be for the concerned Court to deal with the same on merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 20/8/2010. 8 The learned counsel for the Petitioners Shri Kulkarni, has tendered affidavit dated 21/12/2011 of the Petitioner No.1 wherein the three amounts which have been deposited i.e. Rs.5,15,240, Rs.65,202/ and Rs.1,84,441/- have been mentioned. It has been further mentioned in Para 2 of the said Affidavit that except the amount of Rs.65,202/- the Respondent herein has not withdrawn his share out of the other two amounts i.e. Rs.5,15,240/- and Rs. 1,84,441/-. The District Court, Nashik therefore is directed to calculate the share of the Respondent in the said two amount i.e. Rs.5,15,240/- and Rs. 5 wp-8371.11.sxw 1,84,441/- and keep it aside and in deposit for a period of ten weeks from date. In the mean time, the Petitioners may apply for appropriate relief before the appropriate Court in the pending proceedings or by filing fresh proceedings if so advised. Having regard to the clarification given in the earlier part of this order, the Petitioner No.2 who is the daughter of the Respondent would be entitled to apply for her share in the ancestral property which will include the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the ancestral lands. 9 With the aforesaid observations, the above Writ Petition is disposed of. 10 All concerned parties to act upon an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. [R.M.SAVANT, J]