Decided on December 15,2020

Deputy Collector And The Special Land Acquisition Officer Respondents


N.V.ANJARIA,J. - (1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Chinmay Gandhi for the applicant Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Nikunj Kanara for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr.P.P. Majmudar for the respondents-claimants in all the applications.
(2.) In these application, the applicant- Corporation has prayed to grant permission to the Corporation to deposit the amount awarded by the Reference Court in each of the Reference Cases wherefrom the respective appeal arise. It is next prayed to stay the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in all the cases, for instance, it is the judgment and award dated 30th April, 2018 in Reference Case No.1113 of 2011 as referable to Civil Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal No.750 of 2019. The stay is sought in respect of all judgment and award in the First Appeal concerned.
(3.) What is conspicuous from the record that the First Appeals of the Corporation was subjected to issuance of notice by the Court as back as on 20 th February, 2019. It was after gap of eight months that the Corporation moved Civil Applications for stay in the respective Appeals, wherein order was passed on 09th October, 2019 making rule returnable on 20th November, 2019. As regards the time-lag above, learned advocate for the applicant-Corporation tried to explain that delay condonation application was filed. 3.1 In any view, when the Civil Applications were posted on 09th October, 2019, Corporation appears not to have pressed for stay of the judgment and awards concerned challenging their First Appeals. It would have only stood to reason, had the applicant- GIDC had sought for stay and it would have deposited the amount at that earliest juncture. By not seeking stay and not depositing the amount, the statutory liability of the Corporation in respect of payment of interest and solatium on the awarded amount of compensation, has gone mounted. The situation was avoidable. The Corporation did not obtain any stay nor opted for deposit of the amount even at that time when Civil Applications were brought before the Court. The order of deposit at that time could have arrested the mounting of the interest and solatium payable by the Corporation. The approach of the Corporation is unfathomable and one to be eschewed on any such occasion. 3.2 Not only that the Civil Applications for stay were not pursued thereafter. In any of the matter the amount awarded by the Reference Court was not deposited. As a result, the Corporation will be bearing additional liability, huge in terms of public money towards interest and solatium required to be paid for the period allowed to be pass-by. While on one hand the Civil Applications for stay originally filed have been kept pending and not pursued, now the fresh applications are filed seeking permissions of the Court to deposit the awarded amount. The stay of the execution of the impugned judgment and awards are asked for. There has been a gap of almost fourteen months contributing to hike in the liability of payment of the amount as above. The Corporation is a public body, and it is expected to ensure that the expense from public exchequer remains minimal and the same is not unnecessarily burdened. It is hoped that the sorry state of affairs shall not repeat their occurrence. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.