Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it becomes necessary to clarify the position so that such situations do not arise repeatedly. Whenever a superior Court grants stay to an award under the Land Acquisition Act subject to deposit of the awarded amount or any part thereof, the Executing Court shall insist upon satisfactory proof showing compliance of such condition. Mere statement that a stay order has been granted would not by itself be sufficient. The Executing Court must satisfy itself that the condition attached to the stay order has actually been complied with within the period prescribed by the superior Court. {Para 9}
10. If the judgment debtor, the State or the Acquiring Body fails to place proof showing compliance with the condition of deposit within the stipulated period, the Executing Court shall not postpone execution proceedings merely because a conditional stay order exists. In such circumstances, the Executing Court shall proceed further with execution in accordance with law. It shall also make all reasonable efforts to dispose of such proceedings expeditiously so that the claimants are not unnecessarily deprived of compensation already determined in their favour.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.2109 OF 2025
State of Maharashtra Vs Zubeda Fakir Mohammad
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JUNE 9, 2026
1. The time granted for filing the paper book is extended
further by a period of six months from today.
2. It is made clear that this extension is being granted as a final
opportunity. In case the paper book is not filed within a period of
one year from today, no further orders shall be required to be
passed by this Court. Upon expiry of the said period, the appeal
shall automatically stand dismissed without any further reference
to the Court.
3. From the record placed before this Court, it appears that by
order dated 12 September 2025 this Court had granted stay to the
impugned award. However, such stay was not granted straightway
or without any condition. This Court had directed the appellant to
deposit the entire awarded amount along with accrued interest
within a period of six weeks. Clause (3) of the said order shows
that continuation of stay was depending upon compliance of such
condition. When a Court stays an award which otherwise could
have been executed, the party getting such protection is expected
to comply with all conditions attached to that order. However,
from the material shown before this Court, it appears that though
substantial period has passed thereafter, the amount directed to be
deposited has still not been deposited till today. A conditional stay
cannot be allowed to continue when the very condition on which it
was granted remains unfulfilled.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the claimants submits that
this factual position regarding non deposit of the amount was
brought to the notice of the Executing Court. According to him,
even after being informed that the condition attached to the stay
order was not complied with, the Executing Court did not proceed
further with execution of the award. It is his submission that
because of such approach the claimants are still deprived of
compensation which has already been determined in their favour
by a competent Court. He further submits that this is not a solitary
instance. According to him, in several execution proceedings
arising from land acquisition awards, a similar practice appears to
be followed. Mere pendency of an appeal or existence of a
conditional stay order is treated as sufficient reason for not
proceeding with execution, even though the conditions attached to
such stay remain uncomplied with. If such practice is allowed to
continue, successful claimants may be forced to wait for an
indefinite period despite succeeding before the Reference Court. It
is therefore submitted that before declining to proceed with
execution, the Executing Courts must verify whether the
conditions imposed by the superior Court have actually been
complied with. Mere production of a conditional stay order by
itself cannot be treated as enough unless compliance of the
condition is also shown.
5. The right of a citizen to receive compensation when his
property is taken by authority of law is undoubtedly a valuable
statutory right. Such right is not in the nature of charity shown by
the State. It arises because the law itself takes away the property of
the citizen for public purpose. When land belonging to a person is
acquired, the owner loses not only the land but also all benefits
and advantages attached with ownership of that property. For this
reason, the law places a corresponding duty upon the Acquiring
Body or the State to pay lawful compensation. This obligation
assumes importance because acquisition does not take place on
account of voluntary agreement of the owner. It takes place
because law permits such acquisition. Apart from statutory
provisions, the right to property is also recognised under Article
300A of the Constitution of India. Though it is no longer a
fundamental right, it still remains a constitutional right and no
person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law.
Therefore, payment of compensation forms essential part of the
scheme relating to compulsory acquisition of land.
6. Once the Reference Court determines the amount payable to
the land owner and passes an award in accordance with law,
enforceable rights come into existence in favour of the claimants.
The execution proceedings are only a method by which the benefit
already recognised by the Court is sought to be actually obtained.
At that stage, the Executing Court performs an important statutory
duty. It is expected to ensure that the successful claimants do not
remain merely with an award on paper and that they actually
receive the benefit flowing from such award. The purpose of
execution proceedings is to convert judicial determination into
actual relief. The Executing Courts must therefore remain
conscious of the fact that persons involved in land acquisition cases
have already suffered deprivation of their immovable property. In
many cases they may have lost agricultural lands, houses or even
sources of livelihood. Delay in payment of compensation often
prolongs their hardship. Such circumstances therefore require due
sensitivity while dealing with execution proceedings arising from
land acquisition awards.
7. There is one more aspect which requires serious
consideration. Under the statutory provisions governing land
acquisition, if payment of compensation is delayed, the Acquiring
Body or the State becomes liable to pay interest at prescribed
rates. In many matters such interest may be payable at the rate of
fifteen per cent per annum. As a result, every unnecessary delay in
depositing the awarded amount keeps increasing the liability
towards interest. Ultimately such burden is required to be borne
from public funds. In practical terms, the consequence of delay
does not remain confined only to the acquiring authority but
affects the public exchequer. The additional amount paid towards
interest does not result in creation of any public asset,
development work or public benefit. Such amount becomes
payable only because the obligation imposed by law or by the
Court was not complied with within the prescribed time.
8. Whenever a superior Court grants stay subject to deposit of
compensation, timely compliance with such condition protects
public funds from avoidable increase in liability. On the other
hand, delay in compliance leads to consequences which could
easily have been avoided by prompt action. Public authorities are
expected to act with responsibility while dealing with public
money. A casual approach in complying with judicial orders not
only affects the rights of claimants but also causes avoidable
financial burden upon the State. It therefore becomes necessary
that the State Government puts in place an effective mechanism so
that whenever conditional orders of this nature are passed, the
required amounts are processed, sanctioned and deposited within
the prescribed period. Administrative delays cannot be accepted as
a justification for burdening the public exchequer with
unnecessary interest liability.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it becomes
necessary to clarify the position so that such situations do not arise
repeatedly. Whenever a superior Court grants stay to an award
under the Land Acquisition Act subject to deposit of the awarded
amount or any part thereof, the Executing Court shall insist upon satisfactory proof showing compliance of such condition. Mere statement that a stay order has been granted would not by itself be sufficient. The Executing Court must satisfy itself that the condition attached to the stay order has actually been complied with within the period prescribed by the superior Court.
10. If the judgment debtor, the State or the Acquiring Body fails
to place proof showing compliance with the condition of deposit
within the stipulated period, the Executing Court shall not
postpone execution proceedings merely because a conditional stay order exists. In such circumstances, the Executing Court shall proceed further with execution in accordance with law. It shall also make all reasonable efforts to dispose of such proceedings expeditiously so that the claimants are not unnecessarily deprived of compensation already determined in their favour.
11. Considering that such issue appears to be recurring in
nature, it would be appropriate for the State Government to issue
necessary administrative instructions to all concerned departments
and officers. Such instructions shall ensure that whenever this
Court grants conditional interim relief, particularly where
continuation of stay depends upon deposit of any amount within a
specified period, immediate steps are taken for compliance of such
directions. Appropriate mechanisms should also be established so
that orders passed by Courts are promptly communicated to the
responsible officers and all necessary approvals are obtained
without delay.
12. The State Government shall also consider putting in place a
system of accountability so that responsibility for non compliance
can be properly identified. If any concerned officer, without
sufficient justification, fails to take necessary steps resulting in non
compliance of conditional orders passed by this Court, appropriate
action in accordance with law and applicable service rules shall be
initiated against such officer. Such measures would also help in
protecting public funds from avoidable financial consequences
arising due to delayed compliance.
13. The Registrar (Judicial) shall circulate a copy of this order to
all Executing Courts throughout the State of Maharashtra for
necessary compliance.
14. Learned Additional Government Pleader shall also
communicate this order to the State Government so that
appropriate circulars or instructions may be issued at the earliest.
15. List the Appeals on 21 July 2026.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment