Holding

The Supreme Court held that the 29 January 2018 order must be applied substantively, thereby rejecting MTDC’s withdrawal of the deposited amount and setting aside the High Court’s order permitting it.

Summary

The appellants, land owners, challenged the High Court's order allowing the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) to withdraw Rs 1,37,50,547 that it had deposited on 20 March 2018 as part of the compensation awarded in a land‑acquisition case. The dispute centred on whether the Supreme Court’s order of 29 January 2018, which modified an earlier High Court stay order by directing that 50% of the enhanced compensation be released without security and the remaining 50% on furnishing security, also barred MTDC from withdrawing the later deposit. The Supreme Court held that the 29 January 2018 order must be interpreted on its substance, not on hyper‑technical grounds, and that it superseded the earlier High Court order. Consequently, MTDC’s attempt to withdraw the amount was rejected and the High Court’s order permitting the withdrawal was set aside. The appeal was allowed, confirming that the entire enhanced compensation must be dealt with according to the Supreme Court’s substantive direction.

Issues considered

The effect of the Supreme Court’s order dated 29 January 2018 on the High Court’s earlier order dated 14 December 2016 and the subsequent withdrawal application by MTDC.
Whether MTDC was entitled to withdraw the amount deposited on 20 March 2018 in view of the Supreme Court’s modification of the compensation release scheme.
Interpretation of the orders on the basis of substance versus technicalities in land‑acquisition compensation matters.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 4, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationEnhanced compensationSecurity depositSupreme Court interpretationTechnicalities vs substanceWithdrawal of deposited amountInterim orders

Judgment

[2022] 7 S.C.R. 509 509

KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN & ORS. A
v.
THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL
MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD,
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. B

(Civil Appeal No. 7062 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
C
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 MTDC-
respondent 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; D
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
E
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 F
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
G
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
H
509
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C
– held applicable.
Case Law Reference
(2014) 14 SCC 798 held applicable Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7062
D
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Civil Application
No.7037 of 2018 in First Appeal No. 1673 of 2017.
E Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek Chaudhary, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Amit
P. S., H. B. Dubey, Ashwini Upadhyay, Amit Kumar, Manish Bhandari,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Suhas Kadam, Neeraj Pal Singh, M/s Black & White Solicitors,
Shirish K. Deshpande, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande,
F Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
G
2. The appellants herein are respondents in First Appeal No. 1673
of 2017 (First Appeal St. No. 37304 of 2016) pending in the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. They have preferred
this appeal for being aggrieved of the order dated 03.12.2018, as passed
in Civil Application No. 7037 of 2018 moved in the said appeal, whereby
H
KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN v. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM 511
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

the High Court has allowed the applicant-Maharashtra Tourism A
Development Corporation (‘MTDC’-respondent No.1) 1 to withdraw an
amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/-, which was deposited by them on 20.03.2018
towards enhanced amount of compensation.
3. Put in a nutshell, the case of the applicant-MTDC before the
High Court had been that 50% of the amount of compensation awarded B
by the Reference Court had already been deposited by them on
20.01.2017 in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 14.12.2016;
and the said order dated 14.12.2016 having not been altered by any
Court, they had mistakenly deposited further an amount of
Rs. 1,37,50,547/- and were entitled to withdraw the same.
C
3.1. On the other hand, the present appellants asserted before the
High Court that in terms of the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by this
Court in Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 20182, the said order dated 14.12.2016
stood modified because this Court had directed release of 50% of the
amount of compensation with security and remaining 50% without security.
D
3.2. In the impugned order dated 03.12.2018, the High Court
accepted the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-MTDC and
allowed them to withdraw the aforesaid amount deposited on 20.03.2018.
4. For what has been indicated hereinabove, the basic question
arising for consideration in this appeal is the purport of this Court’s order E
dated 29.01.2018 and its effect on the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by
the High Court. The background aspects of the matter could be referred
only to the extent relevant for determination of the question so arising.
4.1. On 10.07.2000, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act of 1894’) was issued for acquisition of F
the land comprising Gut Nos. 90 & 91 of Village Pimpaldari, Taluk Sillod,
District Aurangabad, for the purpose of Ajanta Verul Development Project.
The Notification under Section 6 was thereafter issued on 21.06.2001.
In the acquisition proceedings so undertaken, ultimately, an award was
made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’) on 21.06.2004.
The appellants being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded G
by the SLAO, got the matter referred under Section 18 of the Act of
1894 for enhancement. The Reference Court dealt with the matter in
1
Hereinafter, for continuity and uniformity, the respondent No. 1 is referred to as ‘the
applicant- MTDC’.
2
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19818 of 2017. H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R.

A L.A.R. No. 101 of 2005 and while partly allowing the same, awarded
enhanced amount of compensation to the appellants. Being aggrieved
by the enhancement so made, the applicant-MTDC preferred the
aforesaid appeal bearing No. 1673 of 2017 (First Appeal St. No. 37304
of 2016).
B 4.2. In the said appeal, while issuing notice on the interlocutory
applications moved by the applicant-MTDC, the High Court ordered
stay over execution of the award subject to the condition that the applicant
shall deposit 50% of the award amount along with interest accrued thereon
within twelve weeks. This order dated 14.12.2016, on its material
contents, reads as under: -
C
“1. Issue notice to the respondents in both civil applications for
delay and stay, returnable on 25.01.2017.
2. The execution of the award impugned in the present appeal
shall stand stayed subject to deposit of the 50% of the amount
D under the impugned award along with interest accrued thereon in
this court by the acquiring body within twelve weeks from the
date of this order.”
4.3. In compliance of the order so passed by the High Court, the
applicant-MTDC deposited 50% of the award amount in the High Court.
E Thereafter, the present appellants filed Civil Application No. 3432 of
2017 for withdrawal of the amount so deposited by the applicant-MTDC.
However, on 07.06.2017, the High Court ordered on the application so
moved by the present appellants that they would be entitled to withdraw
50% of the deposited amount subject to filing of an undertaking to re-
deposit, if so directed in future. The balance amount was ordered to be
F invested in a fixed deposit. This order dated 07.06.2017, on its material
contents, reads as under:-
“1. The application is partly allowed. The applicants are permitted
to withdraw 50 per cent of the deposited amount on submitting an
undertaking that in the event any adverse order is passed, the
G applicants will redeposit the said amount within four months of
passing such order. The balance amount shall be invested in a
Fixed Deposit Receipt in any nationalized Bank initially for a period
of two years, and if required, for further period till disposal of the
appeal. Civil Application stands disposed of.”
H
KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN v. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM 513
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

4.4. Thus, at the given stage, the resultant position was that pursuant A
to the order dated 14.12.2016, only 50% of the amount awarded by the
Reference Court was to be deposited by the acquiring agency and even
out of this amount, only 50% was allowed to be withdrawn by the
claimants/appellants. Thus, in effect, the appellants were to get in hand
only 25% of the compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court.
B
4.5. Against the aforesaid order dated 07.06.2017, the claimants/
appellants approached this Court by way of S.L.P. (C) No. 19818 of
2017 leading to Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 2018. When the said appeal
came up for consideration before this Court, it was not disputed by the
parties that in a similar matter, being the case of Wajidmiya Abdul
Raheman Shaikh & Ors. v. Maharashtra Ind. Dev. Cor. & Ors., C
Civil Appeal No. 8056 of 2013, the High Court order staying payment of
the enhanced amount of compensation had been modified to the effect
that 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation would be released
without security and the balance 50% would be released on furnishing
security. There being no dispute about applicability of the order so passed D
by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 8056 of 2013 (supra), the appeal filed
by the present appellants was also allowed in the same terms and the
impugned order of the High Court was modified. The order dated
29.01.2018 passed by this Court in disposal of the said appeal of the
appellants, Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 2018, on its material contents, reads
as under: - E

“Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
It is not disputed that in a similar matter being Wajidmiya
Abdul Raheman Shaikh & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Ind. Dev.
Corpn. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8056 of 2013 etc. etc.), the F
High Court order staying payment of enhanced compensation has
been modified to the effect that 50% of the enhanced
compensation be released without security and the balance of
50% to be released on furnishing security.
Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is allowed in the same terms G
and the impugned order of the High Court is modified.”
4.6. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2018 by this
Court, the applicant-MTDC deposited the said amount of
Rs. 1,37,50,547/- in the High Court on 20.03.2018. However, thereafter,
they moved the said application before the High Court seeking to withdraw
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R.

A the amount so deposited with the submissions that such a deposit was
made per mistake. It was submitted that in the order dated 29.01.2018,
the Supreme Court had not directed the applicant-MTDC to deposit the
entire compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court and the
directions in the order dated 29.01.2018 had only been in respect of the
amount which was deposited in the High Court before passing of the
B
order by the Supreme Court.
4.7. The High Court accepted the submissions so made by the
applicant-MTDC while observing that the order dated 29.01.2018 passed
by this Court could not be read as a permission to the claimants to
withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded by the Reference
C Court. The High Court, therefore, allowed the applicant-MTDC to
withdraw the amount deposited on 20.03.2018 while observing, inter
alia, as under: -
“4. Undisputedly, the applicant MTDC filed this appeal challenging
the judgment and award, passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior
D Division, Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 101 of
2005. In this appeal, the MTDC filed Civil Application No. 16090
of 2016 with Civil Application No. 16091 of 2016 for condonation
of delay and stay. On 14.12.2016, this Court passed stay order
subject to deposit of 50 per cent of compensation amount awarded
E by the Reference Court, with accrued interest thereon.
5. In obedience of this order, the MTDC deposited 50 per cent
amount of compensation in this Court. Thereafter original claimants
filed Civil Application No. 3432 of 2017 for withdrawal of said 50
per cent deposited compensation. On 7.6.2017, this Court allowed
F the claimants to withdraw 50 per cent amount out of deposited 50
per cent compensation subject to filing of undertaking to deposit
the withdrawn amount if directed by this Court in future. The
balance amount was directed to be invested in fixed deposit.
Against that order, the claimants approached Supreme Court and
in Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 2018 on 29.1.2018, the Supreme Court
G modified the order passed by this Court and released 50 per cent
of enhanced compensation without security and balance 50 per
cent was released on furnishing security.
6. If the sequence of above events is considered, it is crystal clear
that the order passed by Apex Court, dated 29.1.2018 pertains to
H
KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN v. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM 515
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

50 per cent amount deposited by appellant MTDC in accordance A
with the direction given by this Court on 14.12.2016 in Civil
Application No. 16090 of 2016. Till passing of order by Supreme
Court on 29.1.2018, only 50 per cent amount out of awarded
amount was deposited and lying in this Court. Even in the order,
dated 29.1.2018, the Supreme Court has not directed the appellant
B
MTDC to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by
the Reference Court. Therefore, the direction given by Apex Court
in the order, dated 29.1.2018 is in respect of amount which was
deposited in this Court till 29.1.2018. This order is not applicable
to the amount which is inadvertently deposited by MTDC on
20.3.2018 i.e. after passing order by the Supreme Court on C
29.1.2018. Therefore, by taking benefit of order of the Supreme
Court, the claimant cannot withdraw the amount deposited by
MTDC inadvertently. The order dated 29.1.2018 does not show
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India as argued. Thus, the inadvertently deposited amount needs
D
to be refunded to the applicant MTDC, as that amount was
deposited in this Court without direction of this Court as well as
without direction given by Supreme Court. The order, dated
29.1.2018, passed by Supreme Court cannot be read as permission
to withdraw entire compensation awarded by the Reference Court
in Land Acquisition Reference No. 101 of 2005. Therefore, E
Application filed by the applicant/appellant MTDC to withdraw
the amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/ deposited inadvertently in this Court
deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, applicant MTDC is permitted to withdraw amount
of Rs.1,37,50,547/ (Rs.One Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty F
Thousand Five Hundred Forty Seven Only) deposited on 20.3.2018.
8. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.”
5. While questioning the order so passed by the High Court, learned
counsel for the appellants has referred to various orders passed by this
Court from time to time in similar matters involving akin issues, including G
the aforesaid relied upon order dated 10.09.2013 in Civil Appeal No.
8056 of 2013. The learned counsel has contended that the appellants,
who lost their land way back in the year 2001, could ultimately receive
the amount of compensation only in terms of the orders passed by this
Court on 29.01.2018 and they cannot be deprived of the same on the H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R.

A hyper-technical submissions sought to be made by the applicant-MTDC,
which had wrongly been accepted by the High Court.
5.1. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that
reliance on the order dated 14.12.2016 of the High Court is erroneous
inasmuch as it was only an interlocutory order and the same was
B superseded by the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by this Court,
specifically permitting the appellants to withdraw 50% of the enhanced
compensation amount without security and remaining 50% with security.
Learned counsel has referred to various other orders passed in similar
matters and has submitted that this Court has consistently taken the
view that the persons who are deprived of their land due to acquisition
C should be paid/disbursed 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation
without security and the remaining 50% with security during the pendency
of appeal by the acquiring agency. The same order was passed between
the parties in the present matter by this Court on 29.01.2018 and its full
and practical effect cannot be whittled down merely by reference to a
D previous order of the High Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (applicant-
MTDC) has strenuously argued that the controversy which reached this
Court earlier was only with regard to the release of 50% of the amount
of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, which had already
E been deposited by the applicant-MTDC on 20.01.2017. This deposit was
made in compliance of the order dated 14.12.2016, which always
remained operative, for having neither been challenged nor modified.
6.1. As regards the order dated 29.01.2018, it has been argued
that in manner and effect, this Court merely directed release of 50%
F amount with security and 50% amount without security while following
the order passed in a different matter, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 8056 of
2013 but, without modifying the earlier order dated 14.12.2016 in the
present case. According to the learned counsel, the implication of the
order of this Court had only been that 50% of the deposited amount was
to be released with security and 50% without security. It has also been
G contended that though no further deposit was required to be made by
the applicant- MTDC, but even if such a deposit was made at the
instance of the appellants in abundant caution, the excessively deposited
amount could not have been withdrawn or received by the appellants.
Learned counsel has submitted that the appellants were trying to take
H advantage of a fiction which might have been created because of the
KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN v. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM 517
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

order dated 29.01.2018 but, if the said order is read together with the A
orders dated 14.12.2016 and 07.06.2017, the picture would be crystal
clear that the appellants were entitled to get only 50% of the total amount
of enhanced compensation, where they could receive half by furnishing
security and other half without security, but there was neither any
obligation on the applicant-MTDC to deposit whole of the amount of
B
compensation nor there was any corresponding entitlement of the
appellants to withdraw the same by taking half on security and the other
half without security. Learned counsel had relied upon an order by a
3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Nayara Energy Limited v.
The State of Gujarat & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 4102-4103 of 2020
arising from S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 14215-14216 of 2020 and particularly C
the following passage therein: -
“6. ….we are of the opinion that if the original claimants are
permitted to withdraw 25% of the enhanced amount of
compensation, as awarded by the learned Reference Court,
together with proportionate interest and cost, without furnishing D
any security and the balance 75% of the enhanced amount of
compensation, together with proportionate cost and interest, as
awarded by the learned Reference Court is permitted to be
invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank with cumulative
interest, it will meet the end of justice and take care of the interest
of both the parties.” E

7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
and have thoroughly examined the material placed on record.
8. A somewhat peculiar situation of the present case has its genesis
in the fact that on 14.12.2016, the High Court had ordered stay over F
execution of the award dated 19.03.2016 on the condition of the applicant-
MTDC depositing 50% of the amount of compensation along with interest
accrued. On 01.02.2017 the applicant-MTDC indeed deposited the said
50% of the amount of compensation but, by the order dated 07.06.2017,
the High Court permitted withdrawal only of 50% of the said deposited
amount (which itself was 50% of the compensation amount) on an G
undertaking and the remaining amount was ordered to be placed in fixed
deposit. This order was in challenge in this Court in Civil Appeal No.
1348 of 2018 wherein this Court passed the order dated 29.01.2018, as
reproduced hereinbefore.
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R.

A 9. At the first blush, it may appear that when only the said order
07.06.2017 (disbursal order) was in challenge before this Court and the
principal order dated 14.12.2016 (stay order requiring only 50% deposit)
was not in question, the order passed by this Court co-relates only with
the disbursal order and thereby, the appellants would be entitled to withdraw
50% of the deposited amount without security and balance 50% on
B
furnishing security. However, a close look at the order 29.01.2018 and
the relied upon order therein bring to fore a situation entirely different;
and it is difficult to accept the submissions of the applicant-MTDC as
also the observations of the High Court that this Court’s order related
only to the deposited amount of compensation and not to the entire
C enhanced amount of compensation.
10. As noticed, the said order dated 29.01.2018 was passed by
this Court without raising of any dispute on the part of any of the parties
as regards applicability of the earlier decision in Civil Appeal No. 8056
of 2013, i.e., the case of Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh (supra).
D The appeal filed by the present appellants was allowed “in same terms”
and the impugned order of the High Court was “modified”. To appreciate
the implication of the expression “in the same terms”, we may fruitfully
refer to the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 8056 of 2013. In the said order, this Court, after condoning delay
and granting leave, took note of the fact that the appeals were directed
E against interim orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad in various civil applications moved in respective
civil appeals; and while observing that the High Court had rejected the
reasonable prayer made by the appellant, this Court proceeded to dispose
of the case with the following observations and directions: -
F “4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we
are of the opinion that the prayer made by the appellants requires
to be accepted and granted. Accordingly, we pass the following
order- “We direct that the 50% of the enhanced compensation
granted to the appellants shall be released without security whereas
G balance of 50% shall be released to them on furnishing security to
the satisfaction of the Collector”.”
10.1. Several other orders passed by this Court in different
matters have also been placed before us for perusal by the learned
counsel for the appellants. The common thread running through all the
H orders aforesaid is that this Court issued similar directions, of allowing
KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN v. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM 519
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

50% of enhanced amount of compensation to be released without security A
and balance 50% to be released on furnishing security. Instead of
multiplying the reference to several orders passed by this Court, for the
present purpose, suffice would be to refer to the order dated 22.11.2019
in Civil Appeal No. 8931 of 2019 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15491 of
2017] wherein, while dealing with a nearly akin situation that the High
B
Court had permitted withdrawal of 25% of the compensation amount
without security and 25% on furnishing solvent security, this Court
referred to the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 2018 i.e., the
case of the present appellants and allowed the appeal in the same terms.
The relevant part of the said order dated 22.11.2019 reads as under: -
“Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. C

The appellant assails the interim order of the High Court in
a Land Acquisition Appeal preferred by the State, permitting
withdrawal of 25% of the Compensation amount without security
and 25% on furnishing solvent surety by the appellant.
D
In view of our several orders on this issue, reference may
be made to one of them in Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 2018, where
the following order has been passed:
“It is not disputed that in a similar matter being Wajidmiya
Abdul Raheman Shaikh & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Indu. Dev. E
Corpn. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8056 of 2013 etc. etc.), the High
Court order staying payment of enhanced compensation has been
modified to the effect that 50% of the enhanced compensation
be released without security and the balance of 50% to be released
on furnishing security.”
F
The civil appeal is allowed on the above terms.”
11. So far as the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4102-
4103 of 2020 is concerned, therein the High Court had stayed the
execution of award passed by the Reference Court on the condition of
the acquiring agency depositing 80% of the awarded amount alongwith
G
proportionate cost and interest and thereafter, the High Court directed
that 50% of the deposited amount be placed in a cumulative fixed deposit
for a period of five years and the balance was allowed to be withdrawn
by the claimants. The High Court also allowed the claimants to withdraw
50% of the accrued interest on fixed deposit. Taking note of the given
fact situation and the fact that the claimants were not in a position to H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R.

A furnish any security, this Court issued directions for depositing entire
awarded amount before the High Court and then, allowed 25% of the
deposited amount to be withdrawn by the claimants without security and
the remaining 75% was ordered to be placed in a cumulative fixed deposit
for a period of five years. The said case essentially proceeded on its
own facts and it cannot be held that this Court has laid down any inflexible
B
rule that in every such case, the claimants would be entitled to withdraw
only 25% of the awarded amount of compensation.
12. Apart from the above, fact of the matter remains that in the
present case, specific order has been passed by this Court in terms of
the order passed in the case of Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh
C (supra). The order passed by this Court had been explicit that the order
of the High Court staying the payment of enhanced compensation stood
modified to the effect that 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation
was to be released without security and the balance 50% on furnishing
security. Even if the initial stay order dated 14.12.2016 had not, as such,
D been challenged before this Court, the disbursal order dated 07.06.2017
had essentially been in continuity thereof and while considering challenge
to the disbursal order, nothing prevented this Court from modifying the
principal stay order itself.
13. In our view, the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by this Court
E in Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 2018 is required to be interpreted and applied
on its substance rather than technicalities. The intent of this Court in
Wajidmiya Abdul Raheman Shaikh (supra) had been clear that the
entire amount of enhanced compensation should reach the claimants
while they would be obliged to furnish security to the extent of 50%
thereof. When the same terms were applied to the present case, the
F attempt on the part of the applicant-MTDC to fall back again and again
on the order dated 14.12.2016 could not have been countenanced.
Unfortunately, the High Court has fallen in such an error by accepting
the hyper technical submissions on behalf of the applicant-MTDC. In
fact, the applicant-MTDC had correctly understood the meaning, purport
G and effect of the order dated 29.01.2018 in the first instance when the
remaining 50% of the amount of compensation was deposited on
20.03.2018. Their second thought and late attempt to withdraw the said
amount, was required to be rejected.
14. Before closing this matter, we are impelled to observe that the
H orders passed by the Courts, and particularly by this Court, are required
KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN v. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM 521
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

to be understood on their pith and substance while avoiding an approach A
of technicalities. Moreover, when the matter relates to the payment of
amount of compensation to the 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. We say no more for the present.
B
15. Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed; the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 is set aside and the
application filed by the applicant-MTDC for withdrawal of deposited
amount of compensation stands rejected. No costs.
C
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Neha Sharma, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H