Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 128 (JHR)

UNION OF INDIA v. SENETH munda ALIAS SENETH KULLA

2005-02-11

N.N.TIWARI

body2005
Judgment : ( 1 ) IN this application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for slay of the operation of the award dated 21-06-2003 passed by Honble Mr. Justice L. P. N. Sahdeo (retired) in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2002. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, this appeal arises out of the award rendered in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2002, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,32,61,908. 30 has been awarded by way of compensation to the claimants- respondents, although the due compensation amount was already determined and the land owners had accepted the amount of compensation without any demur by way of full and final settlement as far back as in the year 1989. According to the appellant, the respondents are, thus, not at all entitled either in law or in equity or under the provisions of Rule 9 of requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable property Rules, 1953 to make any further claim. It has been stated that the award is apparently illegal and unsustainable and the appellant has a fair chance of success in the appeal. It has been further stated that if during pendency of this appeal, the amount is paid to the respondents, it would be extremely difficult for the appellant to recover the same from the respondents and as such, in the interests of justice, the said award dated 23-01-2000 should be stayed. ( 3 ) IN reply to the said interlocutory application, the respondents contended that the award in question is in the nature of money decree and the same cannot be stayed. The appellant is duty- bound to pay the awarded sum in view of Section 9 and rule 10 (6) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and its Rules of 1953. It has been stated that in similar type of cases, this Court has directed the appellant to make payment of the awarded sum. It has been further stated that the respondents 1 to 9 are poor farmers and that they have accepted and received the payment of compensation amount in the year 1991, under protest. It has been further stated that the respondents have sufficient land and there will be no difficulty in paying back the money by them in case the appellant succeeds in appeal, which however, is a remote possibility. It has been further stated that the respondents have sufficient land and there will be no difficulty in paying back the money by them in case the appellant succeeds in appeal, which however, is a remote possibility. ( 4 ) WHEN this application was taken up for hearing on 18/1/2004, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that if the award is not stayed and the awarded sum is paid to the respondents, recovery of amount would not be possible. It was further submitted that the respondents cannot furnish proper and sufficient security against which the said huge sum can be paid. ( 5 ) MR. H. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, replying to the said contention of the appellant, submitted that the respondents are in a position to furnish security to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and that in case of setting aside or modification of the impugned award, the respondents will refund the money and to that regard the respondents shall file an affidavit, if time is granted to them. This Court, thereafter, adjourned the hearing and granted time, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondents. An application, thereafter, has been filed being i. A. No. 241 of 2005, dated 24-01-2005, duly supported by the affidavits of concerned respondents. In paragraph 5 of the said interlocutory Application, the respondents have stated their willingness to furnish security, as thus :-"5. That the respondents / claimants/land holders, in view of the order passed by this Honble Court as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs of this petition, are ready to give the security for acceptance in alternative of the following terms which this Honble court may deem fit and proper (A) By executing a bond in the name of president of India as it is being executed by the other claimant/ land holders in other cases such as M. A. No. 38 of 1994 (R), M. A. No. 39 of 1994 (R) and M. A. No. 27 of 1994. (B) On payment of entire awarded sum 2,32,61,908. 30 paise in that case half of the amount will be fix deposited in the name of all respondents separately/jointly will be deposited in the safe custody of the Court till the disposal of the present Appeal within one month from the date of receipt of the amount from the appellant. (C) Undertaking by all the Respondent nos. 30 paise in that case half of the amount will be fix deposited in the name of all respondents separately/jointly will be deposited in the safe custody of the Court till the disposal of the present Appeal within one month from the date of receipt of the amount from the appellant. (C) Undertaking by all the Respondent nos. 1 to 9 jointly and severally to refund the amount after modification of the award, if any, from the lands of the respondents situated at village Tumbagutu under Khewat no. 6/1, 6/3 Khata No. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 74, 149, 153, 155, 116 measuring an area 48. 72 Acres which is in khas possession of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 jointly. The aforesaid land is of predecessor of the appellants. A detail list of lands in possession of the resppndents are hereto annexed and marked Annexure 1 forming part of this petition. (D) That if this Honble Court so pleases the awardees / land holders / Claimants are ready to furnish a bank guarantee upto the extent of one crore rupees if the entire amount is paid to the claimants but the same will be furnished before this Honble court on receipt of the entire amount and that too within one month from the date of receipt of the amount. " ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties and perusing the statements made on affidavit, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out for staying the impugned award. The prayer for stay of the award made in LA. No. 1320 of 2003 is, thus, rejected. However, in view of the genuine apprehension of the appellants regarding the refund realization of the amount paid to the respondents in the event of setting aside/modification of the impugned award, the payment of awarded amount shall be subject to the folllowing conditions :-" (i) The authority, concerned, shall release 50% of the awarded sum on furnishing a security bond of the immovable property of the equivalent value in favour of the President of India, to the satisfaction of the deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. (ii) The remaining 50% of the awarded amount shall be paid on furnishing a bank guarantee of the equal amount by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of payment of first 50% amount. ( 7 ) THE LA. (ii) The remaining 50% of the awarded amount shall be paid on furnishing a bank guarantee of the equal amount by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of payment of first 50% amount. ( 7 ) THE LA. No. 1320 of 2003 along with la. No. 241 of 2005 are, thus, disposed of with the said directions. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .