Bombay High Court
New Millenium India Property ... vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 10 August, 2022
Author: R. D. Dhanuka
Bench: R. D. Dhanuka
KVM
1/4
1 - IA 10159 OF 2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN Digitally signed by
KANCHAN VINOD
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VINOD MAYEKAR
Date: 2022.08.17
MAYEKAR 10:20:56 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10159 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3119 OF 2022
New Millenium India Property Developers
Private Limited & Ors. ..... Applicants
IN THE MATTER OF
New Millenium India Property Developers
Private Limited & Ors. ..... Petitioners
VERSUS
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Through
Chief Executive Officer & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Yatin Malvankar, a/w. Mr.Pranav Thackur for the
Applicants/Petitioners.
Ms.Shyamali Gadre, a/w. Ms.Harshita Bhanushali, Ms.Janhvi G., i/b.
Little & Co. for the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 - MIDC.
Mrs.Rupali M.Shinde, A.G.P. for the State.
Ms.Ayushi Anandpara, a/w. Mr.Sahil Namavati, i/b. Lexicon Law
Partners for the Respondent no.5.
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2022 P.C:-
Matter is placed on board under the caption of speaking to the minutes of the order dated 22nd July, 2022 passed by this Court. KVM 2/4 1 - IA 10159 OF 2022.doc Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the paragraph nos. 1 to 6 of the said order and also tendered a copy of the compilation. He invited our attention to the award annexed at page 26 of the compilation made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat and submits that this Court by the said order dated 22 nd July, 2022 had taken note of the letter dated 21st July, 2022 addressed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Karjat stating that 63.232 hectares can be acquired of payment of compensation of Rs.86,94,40,000/- to the petitioners.
2. It is submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer thus could not have made an award only in respect of the land admeasuring 16.871 hectares. He submits that the MIDC has not even deposited Rs.23,19,76,250/- as computed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as and by way of compensation.
3. Mr.Shinde, learned A.G.P. for the State on the other hand invited our attention to the letter dated 21st July, 2022 addressed by the Sub- Divisional Officer to the Higher Authority and submitted that even in the said letter there is some reference to the title dispute in the award made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The award could be thus made KVM 3/4 1 - IA 10159 OF 2022.doc only to the extent of 16.871 hectares. Learned counsel for the MIDC states that in view of the copy of the award received by the MIDC stating that the award was in respect of 16.871 hectares and compensation arrived at Rs.23,19,76,250/- followed by another letter from the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 27th July, 2022 stating that there are title disputes and the land is not contentious, MIDC did not deposit any amount.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out inadvertent error in the order dated 22nd July, 2022 and more particularly 2nd line of paragraph (3) stating that the learned senior counsel for the petitioner had undertaken to handover vacant possession of the land in question. He submits that the statement was not to handover vacant possession of the land in question but to handover the possession of the land on, "as is where is basis".
5. In our view, learned counsel for the petitioner is right that the statement made before this Court was not to handover vacant possession of the land in question but to handover the possession on as is where is basis to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The said KVM 4/4 1 - IA 10159 OF 2022.doc statement made in para (3) of the said order is accordingly clarified.
6. Another grievance of the petitioner is that though there was no agreement between the petitioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer for making an award under section 33(1) of the MIDC Act, the Sub- Divisional Officer has made an award in question under section 33(1) and not under section 33(3).
7. The issue now raised by the petitioner is about the alleged non compliance of the order passed by this Court. This issue cannot be decided by this Court in this application made for speaking to the minutes of the said order dated 22nd July, 2022. The petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
8. The order dated 22nd July, 2022 stands clarified only to the extent insofar as paragraph (3) is concerned.
[KAMAL KHATA, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]