Facts
- MTDC filed Civil Application No 16090 of 2016 with Civil Application No 16091 of 2016 for condonation of delay and stay, complying with the court’s order by depositing 50% of the compensation amount.
- Appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by SLAO under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
- MTDC deposited an additional amount post a Supreme Court order, leading to the filing of Civil Application No 3432 of 2017 for withdrawal of the said deposited amount.
- High Court allowed MTDC to withdraw Rs. 1,37,50,547 deposited towards enhanced compensation with certain conditions.
- Subsequent orders and appeals challenged the withdrawal of the deposited amount by MTDC.
- Various court orders were referenced to argue against the complete withdrawal of the compensation amount by claimants.
- The Supreme Court order did not permit the claimants to withdraw the amount deposited inadvertently by MTDC.
- The Supreme Court, in its order dated 29.01.2018, did not direct the appellant MTDC to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court.
- The directions in the order dated 29.01.2018 pertained to the amount already deposited in the High Court before the Supreme Court’s order.
- Initially, only 50% of the awarded amount was deposited and lying in the High Court before the Supreme Court’s order.
- The High Court acknowledged this and clarified that the Supreme Court’s order did not permit the claimants to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once.
- On 29.01.2018, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order and released 50% of the enhanced compensation without security, while the remaining 50% was released upon furnishing security.
- The sequence of events establishes that the Apex Court’s order of 29.1.2018 addressed the 50% amount deposited by MTDC as per the direction from the High Court on 14.12.2016.
- The High Court allowed MTDC to withdraw the amount deposited on a specified date, following the Supreme Court’s modification of the 29.1.2018 order.
Also Read: Legal Authority and Res Judicata in Representation Matter
Arguments
- The appellants lost their land in 2001 and received compensation according to the orders of 29.01.2018 by this Court.
- The High Court’s order dated 14.12.2016 was interlocutory and superseded by the Court’s order on 29.01.2018 allowing the appellants to withdraw 50% of the enhanced compensation amount without security.
- This Court has consistently ruled in similar cases that 50% of the enhanced compensation amount should be disbursed without security and the remaining 50% with security during the appeal process by the acquiring agency.
- The order of 29.01.2018 must be upheld despite references to previous High Court orders.
- The controversy was originally about releasing 50% of the compensation amount deposited by MTDC on 20.01.2017, with 50% to be released with security and 50% without security as per this Court’s order.
- Appellant- MTDC contended that no further deposit was required despite excessive deposit made by them.
- The order dated 29.01.2018, read with orders from 14.12.2016 and 07.06.2017, clarified that the appellants were entitled to only 50% of the total enhanced compensation in a split manner.
- There was no obligation for MTDC to deposit the entire compensation amount or for the appellants to withdraw half with security and half without security.
- Reference to an order by a 3-Judge Bench in the Nayara Energy case supported the concept of splitting the enhanced compensation for both parties’ interests.
- The unique circumstances of the case stemmed from a High Court order on 14.12.2016, requiring MTDC to deposit 50% of the compensation amount with interest to stay execution of the award.
- MTDC complied by depositing the said 50% on 01.02.2017, leading to a subsequent order on 07.06.2017 allowing withdrawal of only 50% of the deposited amount.
Also Read: Court’s Legal Analysis on Filing Counter-Claim
Analysis
- The High Court permitted withdrawal of 25% of the Compensation amount without security and 25% on furnishing solvent surety by the appellant, based on an interim order.
- The appellant-MTDC attempted to rely on an order dated 14.12.2016, but the Court did not accept this fallback position.
- The order dated 29.01.2018 was interpreted to mean that the entire enhanced amount of compensation should reach the claimants.
- A similar situation was addressed in Civil Appeal No 8931 of 2019, where the intent was to release the entire enhanced compensation to the claimants while they furnish security for 50% of the amount.
- It was emphasized that technicalities should not overshadow the substance of the orders passed regarding the disbursement of compensation.
- Specific directions were given for the release of compensation without security and on furnishing security, following the principles laid down in previous cases.
- The High Court’s acceptance of hyper-technical submissions from the applicant-MTDC was deemed an error, and the appellant’s request to release the compensation was granted.
- 25% of the deposited amount was allowed to be withdrawn without security, while the remaining 75% was directed to be placed in a cumulative fixed deposit for a specified period.
- The Court modified previous orders to ensure fair disbursement of compensation to the claimants, considering their inability to furnish security.
- Consistent directions were issued by the Court to release 50% of the enhanced compensation without security and the remaining 50% on furnishing security.
- High Court order staying payment of enhanced compensation modified
- 50% of enhanced compensation to be released without security
- Balance of 50% to be released on furnishing security
- Civil appeal allowed on the above terms
- When determining compensation for land losers, prioritize the view that upholds justice over technicalities
- Court orders, including those from the Supreme Court, should be interpreted based on their essence rather than technicalities
Also Read: Analysis of Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence
Decision
- The balance amount will be invested in a Fixed Deposit Receipt in any nationalized Bank initially for a period of two years
- The investment can be extended for a further period till the disposal of the appeal, if required
- The Civil Application has been disposed of with no costs incurred
- The appeal has succeeded and the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 has been set aside
- The application filed by the applicant-MTDC for withdrawal of the deposited amount of compensation has been rejected
Case Title: KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN Vs. THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER (2022 INSC 1055)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007062-007062 / 2022
