1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9679 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1671 OF 2009 Ramchandra Shripati Jagtap and others .. Applicants Versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Through Administrator and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9680 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1674 OF 2009 Madhavrao Raghunath Jagtap .. Applicant Versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Through Administrator and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9681 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2009 Sau Rukhmanbai Sarjerao Jagtap .. Applicant Versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Through Administrator and others .. Respondents 2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9682 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1672 OF 2009 Sukhdeo Bhikaji Bhusare .. Applicant Versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Through Administrator and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9704 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1673 OF 2009 Dada Asru Bhusare Died Through L.R.s B. D. Bhusare .. Applicant Versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Through Administrator and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9705 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1677 OF 2009 Raghunath Balaji Jagtap L.R. Madhavrao Ragunath Jagtap and ors. .. Applicant Versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Through Administrator and others .. Respondents 3 Shri K. D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2. Shri N. S. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10607 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1670 OF 2009 Kishan Shankar Salve died through its L.Rs. .. .. Applicants Versus 1. The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others .. .. Respondents Shri K. D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2. Shri N. S. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 08TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. These are the applications for withdrawal of amount which has been deposited in this Court by the appellant in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 30th June, 2009. 4 2. The lands in question have been acquired by the appellant initially for the purpose of development of township. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved thereby the applicants preferred reference. The learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation. Being aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred the appeal. While granting stay, this Court had imposed a condition that seventy five percent of the amount as awarded by the Reference Court should be deposited as pre- condition for grant of stay. Accordingly the appellant has deposited the amount. 3. While allowing the application for stay, this Court had granted liberty to the present applicants to file application for withdrawal of amount. It was also made clear that, the applications will be considered on its own merits. In view of that liberty the present applications are filed. The applications are vehemently opposed by Shri Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. He submits that, while awarding the compensation, the learned Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale instance of the land which was 1 and 1/2 kilometer away from the main Jalna road in developed location. He submits that, lands acquired was in an interior area and was only an agricultural land. He further submits that, the learned Trial Court has granted the amount as grantable under Section 1A of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act twice. It is submitted that, while determining the market price twelve percent increase per year is granted from the date of notification under Section 4 till the date of award. So also the operative part of the 5 judgment again reveals that twelve percent hike for two years is granted. 4. Shri Bajaj the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent also placed on record a map of area, so as to show the location of the land acquired and the land of which comparable sale instances have taken into consideration. Shri Bajaj further submits that, the appellant has to face difficulty in recovering the amount in many appeals wherein the claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount. 5. We have perused the award passed by the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale instances of residential plots and on the basis of the sale instances the valuation has been found to be Rs. 24,493/- per R. However, while granting the compensation to the applicants only 1/4th of the said price has been taken into consideration as reasonable compensation, observing that the land was not yet converted into non agricultural, though it had N. A. potentiality. We can take judicial notice of the fact that, the land in question is between the Aurangabad city and the Aurangabad Airport. The map placed on record by CIDCO would itself show the said position. Prima facie we are in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the benefit granted under Section 1A of Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act has been granted twice. However, in order to secure the interest of appellant in that regard, this Court has already directed only seventy five percent of 6 the amount to be deposited. 6. In so far as the contention regarding whereabouts of the some of the claimants are not available for recovering the amount is concerned, the Court will take care to safeguard the interest of the appellant. 7. Shri Bajaj the learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, in view of the scheme, the claimants/applicants were given 12.5 per cent of the area of the land acquired on condition that the cost of acquisition shall be repaid to the appellant. He submits that in that view of the matter the appellant would also be entitled to 12.5 per cent share in the enhanced compensation. In so far as the contention of the appellant regarding their entitlement of 12.5 percent share in the enhanced compensation is concerned, we find that the interest of the appellant can be safeguarded by not permitting the blanket withdrawal of amount, but by directing withdrawal of some portion of amount subject to furnishing the bank guarantee. 7. In that view of the matter the applications are allowed as under : The fifty per cent of the amount awarded by the Reference Court shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the applicants without furnishing any surety. However the applicants shall file an undertaking before this Court that in the event if it is found that, the 7 amount withdrawn by them is more than the one to which they are entitled, they shall refund the same. In the undertaking the detailed address of the claimants/applicants shall also be given. The twenty five per cent of the amount awarded by the Reference Court shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the applicants on furnishing bank guarantee of any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Oct. 09