Bombay High Court
Radheshyam S/O. Zumbarlal Chandak vs M.I.D.C., Amravati And Another on 24 January, 2018
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 wp2095.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2095 OF 2016
Radheshyam S/o. Zumbarlal Chandak,
Aged about 68 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. Prabhat Chowk, Amravati.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. M.I.D.C., Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Collector (Land Acquisition
Officer, Amravati)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri R.G.Kavimandan, Adv. H/f. Shri S.S.Alaspurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri A.M.Balpande, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JANUARY 24, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2018 23:24:19 :::
Judgment 2 wp2095.16.odt
3. In reference proceedings at the behest of the petitioner (claimant) an award was passed by the reference Court on 2 nd July, 2008, however, this award was silent on the entitlement of the claimant for interest on the amount receivable by the claimant for the period for which the reference was pending. The claimant filed an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the award be corrected and the respondents be directed to pay interest as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This application is dismissed by the impugned order. The learned trial Judge reeled under the impression that he cannot modify the award passed on 2 nd July, 2008 as it is not permissible for the executing Court to go beyond the judgment and decree / award. The learned trial Judge relied on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bai Shakirben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh and Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in AIR 1996 SC 3323.
4. After examining the matter, I find that the learned trial Judge has committed an error by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While dealing with this application, the learned trial Judge was not acting as Executing Court, but was dealing with the application as the original Court. Only because the execution proceedings were pending before him and application was filed before him, it cannot be said that the application was ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2018 23:24:19 ::: Judgment 3 wp2095.16.odt filed before the executing Court. The learned trial Judge has misapplied the above referred judgment. The petitioner/ claimant cannot be denied the claim for interest as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in my view, the learned trial Judge was under obligation to modify the award passed by him on 2nd July, 2008.
5. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed.
iii) The award passed by the reference Court on 2 nd July, 2008 stands modified to that extent.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2018 23:24:19 :::