Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6 and 18 – Acquisition proceedings – Matter relating to payment of compensation – Approach of technicalities to be avoided – Case of MTDCrespondent no.1 that 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by Reference Court had already been deposited by them on 20.01.2017 in terms of order passed by High Court on 14.12.2016; and order dated 14.12.2016 having not been altered by any Court, they had mistakenly deposited further amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/on 20.03.2018 towards enhanced amount of compensation and were entitled to withdraw the same – Appellants, however, asserted that in terms of order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 20182, the order dated 14.12.2016 stood modified because the Supreme Court had directed release of 50% of the amount of compensation with security and remaining 50% without security – High Court allowed respondent No.1-MTDC to withdraw amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/- deposited by them on 20.03.2018 – Purport of Supreme Court’s order dated 29.01.2018 and its effect on order dated 14.12.2016 passed by High Court – Held: Order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 2018 is required to be interpreted and applied on its substance rather than technicalities – On facts, attempt on part of respondent no.1-MTDC to fall back again and again on order dated 14.12.2016 cannot be countenanced – High Court erred in accepting hyper technical submissions on behalf of respondent no.1-MTDC – In fact, respondent no.1-MTDC correctly understood the meaning, purport and effect of order dated 29.01.2018 in the first instance when remaining 50% of the amount of compensation was deposited on 20.03.2018 – Their second thought and late attempt to withdraw the said amount, required to be rejected – Orders passed by Courts, and particularly by Supreme Court, are to be understood on their pith and substance while avoiding an approach of technicalities – Moreover, when the matter relates to payment of amount of compensation to land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities – Judgment / Order.
Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh & Ors. v.
Maharashtra Ind. Dev. Cor. & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 798 – held applicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.