Mohit Madhusudan Bharuka Another v. State Of Maharashtra, Through- Collector, Aurangabad And Others

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2021 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6346 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2104 OF 2013 Mohit Madhusudan Bharuka & another Applicants

Versus

State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for respondent No. 1- State. Ms. P. A. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. U. K. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE :18th NOVEMBER, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

By order dated 8th May, 2014, applicant/original appellant was directed to deposit 50% amount in two instalments i.e. first instalment of 25% b%y end of June 2014 and remaining 25% b%y end of Septemb%er 2014. The amount deposited in the first instalment was permitted to b%e withdrawn b%y order dated 8th August, 2014. By this application, the applicants are seeking withdrawal of remaining 25% amount deposited b%y respondent No. 2 b%y way of second instalment.

- 2 - 2.

Heard learned advocates for b%oth the parties. Learned advocate for applicants sub%mitted that only 50% amount arising of judgment of reference Court is deposited and hence withdrawal may b%e allowed. He also contended that applicants are financially severely affected b%y pandemic.

3.

Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 opposed the application. It is contended that impugned order is passed b%y the Reference Court without cogent evidence on record and without proper reasons. According to her, the award has b%een passed relying upon the private valuer and error is committed in increasing numb%er of fruit b%earing trees.

4.

It is to b%e noted that 50% amount of the total amount of award was directed to b%e deposited b%y this Court. Thus, interest of the appellant is already b%eing protected. Out of the said amount, 75% amount has b%een withdrawn b%y the applicants herein as per order dated 8th August, 2014. The reasons for withdrawal of amount as mentioned in application are satisfactory. Even otherwise, the total amount that would b%e withdrawn b%y the applicants will b%e 50% of the amount only. Thus, there is no justification for refusing

- 3 - withdrawal of the remaining 25% amount. Hence, applicants are permitted on furnishing solvent security in the like amount to withdraw b%alance amount with interest accrued thereon. 5.

In the ab%ove terms, civil application stands disposed of. ( R. M. JOSHI) ( R. G. AVACHAT) Judge Judge dyb%