1 caf1458.2748.2762.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1458 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2748 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2010 Shri Jayant Maniklal Lunawat & Anr. ....Applicants. Vs. SLAO & Ors. ....Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2762 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 17586 OF 2010 Ganpat D. Manjale & Ors. ....Applicants. Vs. Shri Jayant Maniklal Lunawat & ors. ....Respondents Mr.Atul Rajadhyaksha with Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for appellants in FA No. 586/10 and for Respondent No.1 in FAST.NO.17586/10. Mr. Vineet B. Naik with Mr. S.R.Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 4A, 5C, 6B, 7,8 & 11B in FA No.586/10 and for appellants in FAST.NO.17586/10. Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, AGP for Respondent-State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 27, 2010 2 caf1458.2748.2762.10 P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. These cross-appeals take exception to the decision of the reference Court on proceedings under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants in the respective appeal claim that the compensation amount is receivable by them. The Appellants in First Appeal No.586 of 2010(hereinafter referred to as ‘Purchasers’ for the sake of brevity) claim that in view of agreement dated 9th April, 1992, in particular, clause-8 thereof, it is this appellant who is entitled for availing of compensation amount in respect of the disputed land. Whereas the appellants in companion appeal claim that admittedly they are the owners of the disputed land and the agreement to which reference is made by the Appellants in the companion appeal filed by the Purchasers creates no right whatsoever, as the said agreement has already been terminated and has come to an end with effect from 22nd February, 1996. Besides, Clause 8 of the agreement pressed into service is of no avail and cannot be read in isolation. In other words, the Purchasers have no right in respect of suit land whatsoever including to claim compensation amount, as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer(SLAO). 3 caf1458.2748.2762.10 3. These appeals were listed on 10th June, 2010. Considering the findings of the Court below, we acceded to the request of the owners to allow them to withdraw principal amount receivable by them towards compensation being Rs. 1,66,84,004/- on furnishing commensurate solvent surety. In the light of the said order, the purchasers have filed Civil Application No.2748 of 2010 for modifying the condition imposed in our order dated 10th June, 2010. The Counsel for the Purchasers argued that the owners may be allowed to withdraw the stated amount atleast on furnishing Bank Guarantee of commensurate value. Accordingly, both the applications filed by the owners and the purchasers are proceeded together. 4. After having considered the rival submissions, we do not think it necessary to recall our order dated 10th June, 2010 passed in favour of the owners permitting them to withdraw only the principal amount towards land cost determined by the SLAO. We would at best impose suitable condition for allowing the owners to withdraw the amount. According to the purchasers, the owners be directed to furnish Bank Guarantee. That would secure the interest of the purchasers as well as ensure that in the event, the owners fail in their appeal, the amount received by them can be recovered in lieu of the Bank 4 caf1458.2748.2762.10 Guarantee offered by them. On the other hand, Counsel for the owners submits that providing Bank Guarantee would require the owners to invest suitable amount in fixed deposit scheme in the concerned bank, which would mean that the amount allowed to be withdrawn will not be available for their disposal. Moreover, the owners have already lost possession of the land after acquisition thereof as back as in January, 2001. Indeed, according to the purchasers, the possession of the disputed land has been taken over from the purchasers and not from the owners. It is not necessary for us to examine this dispute at this stage. 5. The fact remains that the land has already been acquired and the owners have prayed for withdrawal of the compensation amount only to the extent of principal amount towards the land cost determined by the SLAO. To that extent, we have already accepted the request of the owners and as aforesaid, we have no reason to recall the said arrangement. The only question that needs to be addressed by us is to provide for appropriate condition, so as to secure the amount in the event the owners fail in the appeal and the amount is required to be paid to the purchasers. That can be done by requiring the owners to furnish solvent security. The owners are willing to furnish solvent security coupled with the charge on the said property, as would be offered towards security. Besides, the owners would provide adequate security upto Rs.2 Crores even to cover the 5 caf1458.2748.2762.10 interest liability, if any, as the total amount which is to be withdrawn by them is only around Rs. 1.67 Crore. 6. Considering the fact that the amount to be withdrawn by the owners will be disbursed between the 10 owners, in that situation, interest of justice would be met by directing the owners not only to furnish solvent security atleast to the extent of Rs.2 crores in the lower court with charge thereon, but also to file individual affidavit of undertaking in this court that in the event the Court were to so direct they shall bring back the amount withdrawn by them alongwith interest at the rate of atleast 12% per annum from the date of withdrawal upto the date of redeposit of the amount, or such rate of interest as may be determined by the Court at the appropriate stage. The affidavit of undertaking to be filed by the respective owners shall also state that they as well as persons claiming through them will be bound by such arrangement. The undertaking before this Court be filed within four weeks from today, failing which the Registrar shall instruct the trial Court to continue the investment of the said amount in a nationalised bank. Only on complying with the above two conditions, the lower court may permit the owners to withdraw the principal amount as referred to earlier. 6 caf1458.2748.2762.10 7. Applications disposed of on the above terms. 8. At this stage, Counsel for the purchasers prays for stay of operation of this order. Since we have already given time for filing of undertaking to the owners for a period of four weeks from today, we make it clear that the order of permitting withdrawal of the specified amount shall not be acted upon for a period of four weeks from today. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)