1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 1994/2007 in F.A.No. 676/2005 The State of Maharashtra and another vs. Mohandeo Rathudeo Futariya Civil Application No. 6968/2007 in F.A.No. 676/2005 The State of Maharashtra and another vs. Mohandeo Rathudeo Futariya. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande & S.R.Dongaonkar,JJ DATE : 18.1.2008 Heard Mr. A.M.Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the appellants and Mr. G.R.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Both these applications are being disposed of by common order since they are interlinked. 3. The appellants filed First Appeal No. 676/2005 against the Judgment and order dated 24.8.2005 passed by the 9th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 274/2002 enhancing compensation in favour of the respondent in respect of the land belonging to the respondent. Along with this appeal the appellants filed Civil Application No. 7822/09 seeking stay of the impugned order. On 22.12.2005 this Court issued notice on interim relief and in the meantime 2` granted stay to the impugned award subject to the appellants depositing 50% amount of the enhanced compensation in this court with liberty to the respondent to withdraw the amount. The appellants did not deposit the amount and, therefore, this court by order dated 15th June, 2006 rejected the prayer for interim relief and consequently dismissed the Civil Application No. 7822/05. 4. The appellants thereafter filed another Civil Application No. 7455/06 seeking stay of the impugned order. By order dated 22.12.2006 this application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application within a period of four weeks. On behalf of the appellants statement was made that entire amount awarded would be deposited before the reference court within a period of 15 days and the prayer was made for stay of the impugned order for a period of four weeks. This court permitted withdrawal of the application with liberty to file fresh application within a period of four weeks. In the said order, it was stated that in case the appellants deposit the amount within two weeks before the reference court, the reference court shall not proceed with the execution of the impugned order till next date i.e. 23.1.2007. On 23.1.2007 the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the appellants stated that 3` the entire enhanced compensation has been deposited in the reference court on 21.11.2006 and it was further stated that the application seeking stay of the impugned order would be filed within a period of three weeks. In spite of objection from the respondent this Court granted three weeks' time to file appropriate application for interim relief and directed the executing court not to proceed with the execution for a period of four weeks. Liberty was also granted to mention the matter after the application was filed by the appellants. The appellants did not take any step within a period of three weeks. The appellants filed Civil Application No. 1994/07 seeking stay of the impugned order. However, the same was circulated in March 2007 and on 23.3.2007 notice was issued to the respondent returnable on 30.3.2007. According to the appellants, the amount was deposited on 21.11.2006 but in the reply filed by the respondent it has been stated that the amount was deposited on 28th March 2007. Thereafter, the appellants filed another Civil Application No. 6968/07 seeking directions to the respondent to furnish security for the amount of Rs. 52,90,994/- which was allowed by the reference court to be withdrawn by furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 20 lacs by an order dated 26.4.2007. It appears that on 7.6.2007 the respondent had withdrawn the entire enhanced compensation. The learned A.G.P. has made 4` grievance that the respondent has not furnished solvent surety in terms of the order dated 26.4.2007 passed by the reference court. 5. The above facts disclose a very sorry state of affairs. In spite of giving several opportunities to the appellants to file appropriate application for stay of the impugned order granting enhanced compensation the appellants have not taken steps in time to secure interim relief in order to protect the interest of the appellants. On the contrary, the above facts clearly disclose the total callousness/ negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the prayer for interim relief before this court. The record also discloses lack of communication between the appellants more particularly the concerned special land acquisition officer and Government advocate appearing before the reference court and this court. The fact remains that the appellants have deposited the entire amount of compensation before the reference court and the respondent has been permitted to withdraw the said compensation. 6. We have noticed that most of the appeals arising out of the land acquisition references are not filed in time and in the appeals where interim orders are passed staying the execution of the impugned orders 5` subject to deposit of the enhanced compensation the same is not deposited in time. In our opinion, it is high time that the State Government takes the issue seriously and takes appropriate steps to see that the interest of the State is protected by filing appeals and applications for interim relief in time so as to protect the interest of the Government. Needless to mention that the amount paid to the decree holders in references under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is out of public money and, therefore, it is of utmost importance that the interest of the Government is protected so that in the event the appeal filed challenging the enhanced compensation is ultimately allowed wholly or partly the amount payable in terms of the orders passed by this court is ultimately secured. 7. Having considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the amount paid to the respondent is out of public money and in the interest of justice we are of the considered opinion that it would be proper to direct the respondent to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 52,90,994/-. 8. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to furnish solvent surety of Rs. 52,90,994/- to the 6` satisfaction of the reference court within a period of 8 weeks from today. In case the respondent has furnished solvent surety for Rs. 20 lacs, in terms of the order dated 26.4.2007 passed by the reference court the respondent shall furnish solvent surety for the balance amount of Rs. 32,90,994/-. 9. We expect the State Government to take appropriate steps at the earliest to protect its interest in the light of the observations made above. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the Registrar (J) of this court to forward the copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra at Mumbai for taking appropriate steps. Both the applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Judge Judge patle