IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Orders passed by Courts and particularly by Supreme Court, are required to be understood on their pith and substance while avoiding approach of technicalities.
(2) Acquisition of land – When matter relates to payment of amount of compensation to land losers, if at all two views are possible, view that advances cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Leave granted.

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 the High Court has allowed the applicant-Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (‘MTDC’-respondent No.1) ¹[Hereinafter, for continuity and uniformity, the respondent No. 1 is referred to as ‘the applicant-MTDC’.] 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 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.

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[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19818 of 2017.], 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.

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 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 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 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 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).

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:

“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 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. Thereaft