Supreme Court of India
Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh & Ors vs Maharashtra Ind. Dev. Cor. & Ors on 10 September, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2013 SC 580
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, H.L. Dattu
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8056 OF 2013
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NO.24894 OF 2013)
WAJIDMIYA ABDUL RAHEMAN SHAIKH & ORS.
...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA IND. DEV. COR. & ORS.
...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH C.A.NO.8057 OF 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.1534/2013
WITH C.A.NOS.8058-59 OF 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.1538-1539/2013
WITH C.A.NO.8060 OF 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.1540/2013
WITH C.A.NO.8061 OF 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.11308/2013
WITH C.A.NOS.8062-63 OF 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.11312-11313/2013
AND WITH
C.A.NOS.8064-70 OF 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.14701-14707/2013
O R D E R
1. Delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals are directed against the interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Civil Application No. 6497 of 2009 in First Appeal Stamp No. 12025 of 2009, dated 17.08.2009, in Civil Application No. 279 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 29 of 2011, dated 01.02.2011, Civil Application No. 9096 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 2308 of 2010, dated 02.09.2011, Civil Application No. 280 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 28 of 2011, dated 1.02.2011, Civil Application No. 5719 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 2314 of 2010, dated 09.09.2011, Civil Application No. 6913 of 2012 in First Appeal No. 3563 of 2011 and Civil Application No. 7774 of 2012 in F.A.No.3562 of 2011, dated 28.09.2012, Civil Application Nos. 14973 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 2679 of 2011 and F.A.No.14974 of 2011 in F.A.No.2675 of 2011, C.A.No.14975 of 2011 in F.A.NO.2676 of 2011, C.A.No.14976 of 2011 in F.A.No.2677 of 2011, C.A.No.14977 of 2011 in F.A.No.2678 of 2011, C.A.No.14978 of 2011 in F.A.No.2680 of 2011, C.A.No.14979 of 2011 in F.A.No.2681 of 2011, dated 20.06.2012. By the impugned orders, the High Court has rejected the reasonable prayer made by the appellants herein.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we are of the opinion that the prayer made by the appellants requires to be accepted and granted. Accordingly, we pass the following order-
“We direct that the 50% of the enhanced compensation granted to the appellants shall be released without security whereas balance of 50% shall be released to them on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Collector”.
5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
...........................J. (H.L. DATTU) ...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013