Supreme Court of IndiaYashwant Waman Patil & Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 18 February, 2008Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2951, 2008 AIR SCW 4962, 2008 (5) AIR BOM R 504, (2008) 3 SCALE 414, (2008) 3 ALL WC 2344(2), (2009) 1 RECCIVR 301, (2008) 3 BANKCAS 304, 2008 (11) SCC 171, 2008 (6) ALLMR (NOC) 24, (2008) 2 BOM CR 673Bench:Tarun Chatterjee,Harjit Singh BediCASE 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 
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.