=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.239 NO.239 NO.239 OF 2002 OF 2002 OF 2002 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.509 OF 2009 MOTION NO.509 OF 2009 MOTION NO.509 OF 2009 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.2574 OF 2001 MOTION NO.2574 OF 2001 MOTION NO.2574 OF 2001 IN IN IN L.A.R.NO.37 L.A.R.NO.37 L.A.R.NO.37 OF 1980 OF 1980 OF 1980 The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ...Appellants v/s The Trustees, Kshtriya Dnyati Sabha, Bombay and ors. ...Respondents Mr S.R. Rajguru for Appellants. Mr L.C. Chogle for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 12TH MARCH 2009 12TH MARCH 2009 12TH MARCH 2009 =2= P.C. :- 1. The property belonging to the respondent No.1 - Trust was compulsorily acquired. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Against that award, a reference was preferred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to this Court which was registered as land acquisition reference No.37 of 1980. It was decided by order dated 3rd March 1994. The Court enhanced the rate of compensation; now it was fixed at Rs.440/- per sq.mtr. The Court also directed benefits under section 23(1A) of the said Act to be paid. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was directed to submit a statement to the Court giving break up and details on the basis of the order of the Court. The Special Land Acquisition Officer did not submit his statement within the time allowed but the acquiring body - present appellants filed review petition against the order dated 3rd March 1994. That was review petition (L) No.20 of 1995. That review petition was dismissed by order dated 12th July 1996. The appellants did not take up any proceedings against that order. The Special Land Acquisition Officer also did not file his statement as observed above before the review petition was filed within the time allowed by order dated 3rd March 1994 or =3= even after the review petition was disposed off. It appears that thereafter on 13th July 2001, the claimants issued notice to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for payment as per the order of the Court. Nothing was done, therefore notice of motion No.2574 of 2001 was taken out for direction to the parties for making payment as per the order dated 3rd March 1994. That motion was taken out on 12th October 2001. It was duly served on the acquiring body and the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The acquiring body appeared before the learned Single Judge on 30th November 2001 and sought time to file reply. The matter was adjourned to 14th December 2001, again the acquiring body appeared, the Special Land Acquisition Officer appeared and sought time to file reply, it was granted. No reply was filed. When the motion came before the Court on 11th January 2002, the Court, in the absence of any reply, granted the motion. The present appeal is preferred against that order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that he could not file reply because of some personal difficulties. According to him, the appellants should be given an opportunity to file reply to the motion. The learned counsel also submitted that the claimants have already withdrawn the amount as per the order dated 11th January 2002. For the amount that was =4= paid under section 23(1A) of the said Act, the claimants have given security, but he is willing to make a statement that the claimants can take back the security on furnishing an undertaking to the Court to bring back the amount if directed by the Court and he submits that the acquiring body is also willing to pay substantial cost. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellants. In our opinion, considering the statement made on behalf of the acquiring order and also willingness to pay substantial cost, it will be in the interest of justice to grant time to acquiring body to file reply to notice of motion No.2574 of 2001 so that the motion can be disposed off by the learned Single Judge on merits. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 4. The order dated 11th January 2002 passed in notice of motion No.2574 of 2001 is set aside. That notice of motion is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law subject to following condition. . That within a period of two weeks from today, the appellants shall file its reply to the notice of motion No.2574 of 2001 before the learned Single Judge, =5= serve copy of that reply to the claimants and pay to the claimants an amount of Rs.15,000/- as cost of this appeal. If the copy of reply is not served and the amount of cost is not paid, this appeal shall be treated as dismissed. In that event, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the security furnished for withdrawing the amount pursuant to the interim order passed in the appeal. . In case the copy of reply is served and the amount of cost is paid as directed above, notice of motion shall stand restored to file of the learned Single Judge and then the claimants would be entitled to take back security furnished by it to withdraw the amount pursuant to the order passed by this Court on filing an undertaking to this Court to bring back the amount if so directed by the learned Single Judge and on such terms and conditions as may be directed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is disposed off. Payment of cost to be made to the Advocate appearing for claimants by cheque. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. =6= . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( A.A. SAYED J.)