KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN & ORS. versus THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
   KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN & ORS.
v.
THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL
MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD,
MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7062 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6 and 18 – Acquisition
proceedings – Matter relating to payment of compensation –
Approach of technicalities to be avoided – Case of MTDC-
respondent no.1 that 50% of the amount of compensation awarded
by Reference Court had already been deposited by them on
20.01.2017 in terms of order passed by High Court on 14.12.2016;
and order dated 14.12.2016 having not been altered by any Court,
they had mistakenly deposited further amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/-
on 20.03.2018 towards enhanced amount of compensation and were
entitled to withdraw the same – Appellants, however, asserted that
in terms of order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 20182, the order dated 14.12.2016 stood
modified because the Supreme Court had directed release of 50%
of the amount of compensation with security and remaining 50%
without security – High Court allowed respondent No.1-MTDC to
withdraw amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/- deposited by them on
20.03.2018 – Purport of Supreme Court’s order dated 29.01.2018
and its effect on order dated 14.12.2016 passed by High Court –
Held: Order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1348 of 2018 is required to be interpreted and applied
on its substance rather than technicalities – On facts, attempt on
part of respondent no.1-MTDC to fall back again and again on
order dated 14.12.2016 cannot be countenanced – High Court erred
in accepting hyper technical submissions on behalf of respondent
no.1-MTDC – In fact, respondent no.1-MTDC correctly understood
the meaning, purport and effect of order dated 29.01.2018 in the
first instance when remaining 50% of the amount of compensation
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 509
509
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
was deposited on 20.03.2018 – Their second thought and late
attempt to withdraw the said amount, required to be rejected – Orders
passed by Courts, and particularly by Supreme Court, are to be
understood on their pith and substance while avoiding an approach
of technicalities – Moreover, when the matter relates to payment of
amount of compensation to land losers, if at all two views are
possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be
preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength
only from technicalities – Judgment / Order.
Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh & Ors. v.
Maharashtra Ind. Dev. Cor. & Ors. (2014) 14  SCC 798
– held applicable.
Case Law Reference
(2014) 14 SCC 798              held applicable
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7062
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Civil Application
No.7037 of 2018 in First Appeal No. 1673 of 2017.
Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek Chaudhary, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Amit
P. S., H. B. Dubey, Ashwini Upadhyay, Amit Kumar, Manish Bhandari,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Suhas Kadam, Neeraj Pal Singh, M/s Black & White Solicitors,
Shirish K. Deshpande, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande,
Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein are respondents in First Appeal No. 1673
of 2017 (First Appeal St. No. 37304 of 2016) pending in the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. They have preferred
this appeal for being aggrieved of the order dated 03.12.2018, as passed
in Civil Application No. 7037 of 2018 moved in the said appeal, whereby
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
the High Court has allowed the applicant-Maharashtra Tourism
Development Corporation (‘MTDC’-respondent No.1)1 to withdraw an
amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/-, which was deposited by them on 20.03.2018
towards enhanced amount of compensation.
3. Put in a nutshell, the case of the applicant-MTDC before the
High Court had been that 50% of the amount of compensation awarded
by the Reference Court had already been deposited by them on
20.01.2017 in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 14.12.2016;
and the said order dated 14.12.2016 having not been altered by any
Court, they had mistakenly deposited further an amount of
R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.