http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1398 of 2008

PETITIONER: Yashwant Waman Patil & Ors

RESPONDENT: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/02/2008

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R (Arising out of SLP[C] No.5670 of 2007) 1.      Leave granted.

2.      This appeal is directed against an interim order dated 22nd of  December, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of  Judicature at Bombay, (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) in  Notice of Motion No.380 of 2006 arising out of Writ Petition  No.11 of 2005. On a pending writ application, a notice of motion  was filed by the present appellants, inter alia, praying against  others for deposit of additional sums in terms of an order of the  Bombay High Court dated 29th of November, 2005 and also for  an early hearing of the writ petition and further to direct the  release of       the amount deposited in favour of the appellants. It  is not in dispute that in terms of the calculation sheet, the  municipal corporation of Greater Bombay had already deposited  in the High Court a sum of Rs. 17,23,29,933/-. The High Court by  the impugned order had allowed the appellants to withdraw the  amount deposited on the condition that the appellants shall  furnish a bank guarantee in respect of the said sum on a prima  facie finding that the Municipal corporation had enjoyed the  possession of the acquired land for more than 40 years without  making payment of compensation. It is this order, which is now  under challenge in the present appeal. 3.      We have heard Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, learned senior  counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.Pallav Shishodia,  learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr.Patwalia  contended that the High Court had committed an error in  imposing a condition on the appellants to furnish bank guarantee  for withdrawal of the compensated amount when the  respondents enjoyed the possession of the acquired land for  more than 40 years without making payment of compensation.  According to Mr.Patwalia, since the appellants had no source of  income nor had any property to secure the withdrawal of the  amount or to furnish bank guarantee, it would be a mere  impossibility to withdraw the compensated amount and  accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the  condition imposed on the appellants should be withdrawn. This  submission of Mr.Patwalia was hotly contested by Mr.Pallav  Shishodia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who  contended that the appellants have already been paid in excess  under the terms and conditions of an agreement of the year 1978  and if now they are permitted to withdraw the amount already  deposited and lying in the court and in view of the submission of  Mr.Patwalia that the appellants have no source of income nor  have any property to secure the amount that would be  withdrawn, it would be a mere impossibility to recover the amount

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

from the appellants, if allowed to be withdrawn, in the event the  writ petition succeeds in which the award in question has been  challenged.  4.      Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after  considering the materials on record and considering the  submissions made on behalf of the parties, we dispose of this  appeal with the following directions: [a]     The amount deposited in the High Court shall be  deposited in fixed deposit of any nationalized bank in the  name of the appellants within a period of one month from this  date initially for a period of six months which shall be renewed  from time to time until further orders of the High Court or till  the disposal of the writ petition whichever is earlier.  [b]    The interest that would accrue on the aforesaid sum  shall be permitted to be withdrawn without furnishing any  security or without furnishing bank guarantee by the  appellants but the principal amount to be invested as a fixed  deposit in the Bank shall not be withdrawn by the appellants  till the disposal of the writ petition or until further orders of the  High Court.  [c] It is not in dispute that the amount awarded has already  been deposited in the High Court, which is now lying. We are  also informed that the amount has already been invested by  the High Court. If the amount has already been deposited in a  Fixed Deposit and any interest has already been accrued, the  High Court is directed to release the interest amount out of the  amount already deposited as a Fixed Deposit in favour of the  appellant.   [d]     However, the High Court is requested to dispose of the  pending writ petition within a period of three months from the  date of supply of copy of this order, without granting any  unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

5.      Accordingly, we modify the interim order of the High  court in the above manner. The appeal is thus disposed of. No  order as to costs.