Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/616/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 616 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 4377 of 2009
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 630 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 4391 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
FATESINH
DALSUKHBHAI & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UMESH TRIVEDI, ADDL. GP for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
None for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR VIJAY N RAVAL for Respondent(s) :
1.2.1,1.2.2 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 29/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr. Trivedi, Addl. GP appearing on behalf of applicants and learned
advocate Mr. Vijay N. Raval appearing on behalf of opponents
claimants.
Learned
Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi submitted that this award, which is under
challenge, has been passed by Reference Court, Godhra in respect of
village Mojari where previous award of village Rasulpur has been
considered. Section 4 notification is dated 15th July 1999
and Section 6 notification is dated 9th December 1999. The
Land Acquisition Officer has passed an order on 7th March
2000 and awarded Rs.7/- for non-irrigated land and Rs.8/- for
irrigated land. But, Reference Court has awarded Rs.65/- per
sq.mtrs., as additional amount of compensation in favour of
claimants. He submitted that in previous award of village Rasulpur,
Bhathvada village was considered and on that basis, that award was
passed. Against Bhathvada village, appeals are preferred by State
Authority, which are pending before Division Bench of this Court. He
also submitted that even in case of Rasulpur village, appeals are
preferred by State Authority, which are also pending before this
Court. He further submitted that there is a distance of about 45
kilometers between village Bhathvada to village Punsari. He submitted
that while deciding reference in respect of Bhathvada village,
previous award in respect of village Punsari has been relied by
Reference Court. Therefore, appeals preferred by State Authority are
pending before this Court. He submitted that this Court might be
directed to deposit the amount awarded by Reference Court, but, not
to permit opponents claimants for withdrawal of 50% amount.
Learned
advocate Mr. Vijay N. Raval appearing on behalf of opponents
claimants submitted that in those appeals preferred by State
Authority, Division Bench of this Court has permitted 50% withdrawal
to respondents claimants while giving direction to Sate Authority to
deposit entire awarded amount together with cost and interest.
I
have considered submissions made by both learned advocates appearing
on behalf of respective parties and I have also appreciated the
anxiety which has been shown by learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi before
this Court today.
Hence,
RULE.
Learned
advocate Mr. Vijay N. Raval waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of opponents claimants.
With
consent of both learned advocates, this group of civil applications
is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.
I
have considered the facts which have been highlighted by both learned
advocates and according to my opinion, this being a money decree,
therefore, appellant must have to deposit entire awarded amount
together with cost and interest before Reference Court concerned.
Therefore, interim relief in terms of Para 5(b) on condition that
applicant State Authority shall have to deposit entire awarded
amount together with cost and interest and other statutory
consequential benefits before Reference Court concerned within a
period of six weeks from date of receiving copy of present order.
After
realising said amount from applicant State Authority, it is
directed to Reference Court concerned to pay 50% amount by account
payee cheque in name of each opponent claimant after proper
verification.
It
is further directed to Reference Court concerned that rest of the
amount is to be invested in any Nationalised Bank initially for a
period of three years with cumulative interest, but, FDR is to be
remained with Nazir of Reference Court concerned which requires
periodical renewal till first appeals are finally deciding by this
Court.
It
is made clear by this Court that opponents claimants are not entitled
any amount of interest from said FDR till first appeals are finally
decided by this Court.
Accordingly,
rule is made absolute to that extent in each application.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top
