Namdeo Govind Dharane And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 10 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR,

(2) LATUR AND OTHERS Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the applicants Mr. P. M. Kulkarni, AGP for the respondent/State CORAM :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

01-03-2021 P. C.

.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGP and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 acquiring body. 2.

These applications are preferred for modification of order passed by this court on 23-10-2020 whereby this court directed that the applicants are allowed to withdraw 50% of the amount on furnishing undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this court and further 25% of the amount on furnishing bank guarantee of any scheduled bank to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this court.

3.

The applicants contend that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for withdrawal of 25% amount operates onerously. The applicants are facing financial crises and, thus, not in a position to furnish bank guarantee.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-acquiring body opposed the prayer. It was submitted that the applicants have already withdrawn 50% of the amount on the basis of undertaking

(3) only. The condition of furnishing bank guarantee is therefore necessary.

5.

This court has found that the prayer for withdrawal of amount is justifiable. The claim of the applicants that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee operates onerously, in the prevailing circumstances, cannot be said to be unreasonable. The interest of securing the refund of amount in the event it is found that the applicants are not entitled to receive the amount of compensation can be taken care of by directing the applicants to furnish solvent surety instead of bank guarantee.

6.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the applications stand allowed. The condition of furnishing bank guarantee of any scheduled bank for the purpose of withdrawal of 25% of the amount stands substituted by the condition of furnishing solvent surety. Clause- II of the order dated 23-10-2020, would now read as under:- 'IIOut of the compensation amount deposited before this Court, the applicants/original claimants are allowed to withdraw 50% amount on furnishing undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this court and further 25% amount on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this court'.

(4) 7.

The applications stand disposed of.

[ N. J. JAMADAR, J. ] VishalK/ca1597.21