KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN & ORS. versus THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Summary

In MTDC's appeal against enhanced land-acquisition compensation, the Bombay High Court stayed execution on deposit of half the award and let the owners draw only half of that deposit. On the owners' appeal, this Court ordered, as in Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh, that 50% of the enhanced compensation be released without security and 50% on security. MTDC then deposited the balance but later withdrew it as a mistaken deposit, with the High Court's approval. The Supreme Court reversed. Read in substance, its order meant that the whole enhanced compensation reached the claimants, with security for half, and it could modify the stay order too. Nayara Energy set no 25% rule. Where two views are possible, courts should prefer the one that advances justice for land losers.

Issues

1. Whether this Court's order allowing release of '50% of the enhanced compensation without security and the balance 50% on security', made on the landowners' challenge to a disbursal order, applied to the whole enhanced compensation or only to the 50% deposited under the High Court's stay order.
2. Whether the acquiring body could withdraw the further amount it deposited after that order as a mistaken deposit.

Provisions considered

• Sections 18 and 54, Land Acquisition Act, 1894In the acquiring body's appeal against enhanced compensation on a Section 18 reference, interim orders on deposit and release must be read so as to secure the land losers' compensation, subject to security, in line with this Court's consistent practice. (¶¶ 4.1, 4.5, 10, 13)

Held

• The order of 29.01.2018 allowed the appeal 'in the same terms' as Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh and modified the High Court's order. Under that line of orders, 50% of the entire enhanced compensation is released without security and the remaining 50% on security. (¶¶ 9, 10, 10.1, 12)
• Although only the disbursal order had been challenged, it followed from the stay order, and this Court could modify the stay order itself. MTDC had first understood the order correctly by depositing the balance, and its later attempt to withdraw that deposit as a mistake was hyper-technical. (¶¶ 12, 13)
• Nayara Energy proceeded on its own facts and does not lay down an inflexible rule that claimants may withdraw only 25% of the awarded compensation. (¶ 11)
• Orders of this Court must be read for their substance rather than on technicalities. In compensation matters, where two views are possible, the one that advances justice for land losers is to be preferred. (¶ 14)

Result

Appeal allowed. The High Court's order of 03.12.2018 permitting MTDC to withdraw Rs. 1,37,50,547 was set aside, and MTDC's application for withdrawal was rejected. No costs.