1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.6447 Of 2010 In First Appeal No.312 Of 2009 Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Through its Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur And Another. ... Applicants. Versus Laxman Vishwanath Joshi & Others. .. Respondents. With Civil Application No.6448 Of 2010 In First Appeal No.268 Of 2009 Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Through its Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur And Another. ... Applicants. Versus Shivaji s/o Bapurao Jadhav & Others. .. Respondents. 2 With Civil Application No.6449 Of 2010 In First Appeal No.273 Of 2009 Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Through its Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur And Another. ... Applicants. Versus Pralhad s/o Namdeo More & Others. .. Respondents. ------ Shri. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for applicants. Shri. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, holding for Shri. P.G. Sontakke Patil, Advocate for respondent-claimants. Shri. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader, K.B. Choudhari, Additional Government Pleader, Shri.V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent – State. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 30th APRIL 2010 3 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel Shri. Sangle for the applicants states that around 13 appeals were filed arising out of a group of Reference Applications under the land acquisition proceedings. The appeals were admitted. The counsel submits that by an order dated 21st October 2008 this Court stayed the execution of the award subject to applicant – Corporation’s depositing 50% of the amount under Award in this Court. The applicant – Corporation had filed application for seeking extension of time for depositing the amount. By an order dated 13-1-2009 passed in Civil Application No.5942 of 2008 and other connected applications, the Division Bench (Coram: P.V. Hardas and P.R. Borkar, JJ.) granted 4 further six weeks’ time to the Corporation to deposit 50% of the amount in this Court. 3) Admittedly, the Corporation did not deposit the amount as per the order passed by this Court within time. The learned counsel submits that the entire amount in group of Reference Applications cases to the tune of Rs.19,97,20,544/- which was deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the trial Court. According to the counsel, in the 13 Land Acquisition References the amount has been withdrawn by the claimants. The Executing Court allowed withdrawal without obtaining bank guarantee of nationalized bank or scheduled bank. In the remaining five matters, which are placed before us, the amount is yet to be withdrawn, according to the counsel. 5 4) The grievance of the counsel Shri. Sangle is that the Collectorate Latur and the Special Land Acquisition Officer have taken some unnecessary steps in respect of depositing the entire amount in the trial Court. The counsel submits that when the appeal was pending before this Court, propriety demanded that the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought to have informed this Court before depositing the amount in the trial Court. The counsel submits that the claimants in the present five matters are likely to withdraw the amount from the trial Court and, therefore, this Court may pass orders on the stay applications filed by the Corporation. 5) The learned Government Pleader, Shri. N.B. Khandare, submits that the 6 Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer acted in furtherance of the communications exchanged between the authorities concerned and the communication received from the office of the applicant – Corporation. 6) The learned counsel Shri. N.P. Patil appearing for the claimants submitted that, the present applications are not maintainable as the applicant – Corporation failed to comply with the order passed by this Court. The stay did not operate as the Corporation did not deposit the amount under the orders of this Court. Therefore there was nothing wrong on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in depositing the amount in the trial Court and the claimants withdrawing the same 7 under the orders passed by the trial Court. 7) The issue now raised before this Court demonstrates a very sorry state of affairs. During the course of hearing we noticed the stand of the Godavari Corporation and the State in respect of the reasons as to how and why the entire amount was deposited in the executing Court was contradictory. The two wings of the State ought to have acted in all fairness and transparent manner. The officers concerned ought to have taken appropriate and reasonable steps in accordance with the spirit of order passed by this Court and in tune with propriety. We find these elements lacking in discharge of duties by the concerned officers of the applicant and the respondent – State. 8 8) The fact situation which emerges from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel is that the stay to the execution of the award passed by this Court was not operating after expiry of the period of six weeks. We are surprised that in spite of the orders on stay petition passed by this Court on 21-10-2008 and on 13th January 2009, the applicants failed to deposit the amount in this Court, whereas the entire amount was deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29-3-2010 in the trial Court. We are not deciding the issues in respect of inter se communication and allegations which are sought to be raised by the counsel in these proceedings. 9 9) In case the claimants in the present cases have not withdrawn the amount so far in the trial Court, the applicants being party to the proceedings of the reference applications are entitled to raise appropriate grounds in case the claimants file applications for withdrawal of the amount in the trial Court. 10) We direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra, to call for explanation from the responsible officers of the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation and the concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer in this regard and deal with the issues in appropriate manner so that in future such situations are avoided. 10 11) In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated above, the civil applications are rejected. 12) The Registrar (Judicial) to forward copy of this order to the Principal District Judge, Latur. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ ca.6447.10