SCA/15893/2008 of GSPC PIPAVAV POWER CO LTD Vs LALABHAI DAYABHAI on 29 December 2008

1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Rule in each of the petitions. Shri G.M. Amin, learned advocate has stated at the Bar that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the private respondents-original claimants and he will be filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the private respondents-original claimants and he waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the private respondents-original claimants in each of the petitions and Shri Amit Patel, learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the in the facts and circumstances of the case all these petitions are taken up for final hearing today.advocate has stated at the Bar that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the private respondents-original claimants and he will be filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the private respondents-original claimants and he waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the private respondents-original claimants in each of the petitions and Shri Amit Patel, learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the in the facts and circumstances of the case all these petitions are taken up for final hearing today.

3. Special Civil Application No. 15764 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 11 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 11 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding

the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.1 Special Civil Application No. 15766 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 33 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.2. Special Civil Application No. 15852 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 16 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.3. Special Civil Application No. 15853 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 17 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.4. Special Civil Application No. 15854 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 19 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.5. Special Civil Application No. 15855 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 23 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.6. Special Civil Application No. 15856 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 24 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.7. Special Civil Application No. 15857 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 25 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.8. Special Civil Application No. 15858 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 38 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.9. Special Civil Application No. 15859 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 39 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.10. Special Civil Application No. 15860 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]

AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 40 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.11. Special Civil Application No. 15861 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 43 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.12. Special Civil Application No. 15862 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 49 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.13. Special Civil Application No. 15863 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 53 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.14. Special Civil Application No. 15864 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 55 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.15. Special Civil Application No. 15865 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 57 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.16. Special Civil Application No. 15866 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 60 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.17. Special Civil Application No. 15867 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 36 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.18. Special Civil Application No. 15885 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 35 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.19. Special Civil Application No. 15886 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 42 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.20. Special Civil Application No. 15887 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 46 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.21. Special Civil Application No. 15888 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 47 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.22. Special Civil Application No. 15889 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]

AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 48 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.23. Special Civil Application No. 15890 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 50 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.24. Special Civil Application No. 15891 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 52 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.25. Special Civil Application No. 15892 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 56 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.26. Special Civil Application No. 15893 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 59 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.27. Special Civil Application No. 15894 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 61 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.28. Special Civil Application No. 15895 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 64 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

3.29. Special Civil Application No. 15896 of 2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner-original opponent No.2 for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the 3[rd ]AdditionalSeniorCivilJudge,Amreliin Application/pursis preferred by the petitioner in land Reference Case No. 65 of 1994, by which learned trial Court has rejected the said application and not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner to the respective claimant paid out of Court towards amount of compensation.

4. Few facts are necessary for the purpose of determination of the present group of petitions. The State Government acquired land in question belonging to the respective private respondents-original land owners for the benefit of the petitioner Corporation- GSPC Pipavav Power Co. Ltd., under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the purpose of installation of power plant at Kovaya, Tal: Rajula. After the proceedings under the Act were completed the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respective private respondents herein-original land owners-claimants preferred Land References before the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act and the Special Land Acquisition Officer referred the said references to the concerned Reference Court, which were numbered as referred to above. It appears that during the pendency of the Reference Cases, the petitioner Corporation arrived at settlement with the original claimant who had sought enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. As the petitioner was of the opinion that it will be in the public interest that the settlement is arrived at with respect to compensation

amount so that they can commence construction work and may not have to wait till the Reference Applications are decided, they entered into the settlement out of Court with respect to compensation. Therefore, the claimants and the petitioner-Corporation preferred application for recording the settlement arrived at between the parties and the said settlement was recorded by the learned Reference Court and consent awards came to be passed by the Reference Court. It appears that, thereafter the petitioner-Corporation deposited entire awarded amount before the Reference Court, Amreli as per the settlement and the consent awards. That the petitioner-Corporation felt that some longer time is likely to be taken by the Reference Court in making the payment to the claimants and thereby it will delay the project of the Corporation, they thought it fit to pay the amount of compensation as per the consent terms and the award directly to the respective claimants by withdrawing the amount deposited by them with the Reference Court and, therefore, petitioner submitted applications before the Reference Court permitting them to withdraw the said amount deposited by them so that they can directly make payment to the respective claimants, however the said applications came to be rejected by the learned Reference Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective orders passed by the Reference Court, Amreli in not permitting the petitioner-Corporation to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by them, petitioner preferred Special Civil Application before this Court and this Court allowed the said Special Civil Application permitting the petitioner Corporation to make the payment to the respective claimants / original lands owners directly and to obtain the receipt with regard to the payment to the respective claimants/ original land owners so that the same can be produced before the learned Reference Court, Amreli and this Court further passed an order that on production of the receipts before the Reference Court, issued by the respective claimants/ land owners that the amount under consent award is already received by them, the Reference Court has directed to refund the amount to the petitioner-Corporation which is already deposited by them within a period of 15 days from the date of production of said receipts. It appears that thereafter the petitioner-Corporation made the payment of compensation as per the consent terms /award to the respective original claimant/ land owners for which the original claimant / owners have no grievance /objection and they have issued respective receipts. That, thereafter petitioner submitted respective pursis/ applications before the learned Reference Court, Amreli pursuant to the order passed by this Court producing the receipts issued by the respective original claimants /owners with respect to the acceptance of the amount of compensation as per the consent terms /award and requested the learned Reference Court, Amreli to refund the said amount to the petitioner-Corporation as the same is lying idle and the said amount of compensation is already paid to the respective claimants / land owners. That the learned 3[rd] Additional Senior Civil Judge, Amreli-Reference Court by impugned orders rejected the said application for refund of the amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court/Reference Court, Amreli rejected the application for refund of the amount which is already paid to the respective claimants/ land owners, the petitioner-Corporation has preferred the present Special Civil Application before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Statement showing respective claimants , Reference Case Numbers, Amount paid to respective claimants is as under:

6. Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the common petitioner has vehemently submitted that learned Judge/ Reference Court has materially erred in rejecting the applications for refund of the amount submitted by the petitioner-Corporation, more particularly, when there is no grievance /objection by the original claimants/owners. It is submitted that as such the amount of compensation has not been deposited by the petitioner-Corporation-acquiring body pursuant to any order and / or direction of the Reference Court and they have deposited the amount of compensation as per the consent terms/award on their own and, therefore, the Reference Court has no jurisdiction. It is further submitted that with a view to avoid further delay, petitioner Corporation deposited the amount and thereafter directly paid the amount of compensation to the respective claimants/owners, the amount as per the consent terms/award directly and thereafter when the petitioner submitted the respective applications/pursis to refund the said amount of compensation deposited by them which is already paid to the respective claimants/owners the learned Reference Court is not justified in not refunding the amount to the petitioner Corporation. It is further submitted that no claimant and /or original owners and / or anybody claiming through them have any objection. Shri Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation has submitted that irrespective of above, the petitioner-Corporation undertakes to make good and pay the amount of compensation, in case any dispute is raised by the any of the co-owners and any order is passed by the Competent Court and at that stage petitioner-Corporation shall not raise any objection with respect to the amount of compensation which is already paid in the present proceedings. Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Shri G.M. Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective claimants before the Reference Court have jointly stated at the bar that in future if any liability to pay the income tax on the amount of compensation arise they will make good. By making above submissions, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Reference Court by directing the Reference Court to refund the amount to the petitioner-Corporation which is deposited by the petitioner-Corporation with the Reference Court in the aforesaid respective land Reference Cases.

7. Shri G.M. Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent original claimants before the Reference Court has stated at the Bar that all the claimants at whose instance the Reference Applications were made to the learned Reference Court are paid the entire amount of compensation as per the consent award and they have no grievance at all. He has also further stated at the bar that the respective private respondents-original claimants at whose instance the references were made, have no objection if the present petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the amount deposited by the petitioner-Corporation in the Reference Court with the respective Cases are is refunded. the respondent original claimants before the Reference Court has stated at the Bar that all the claimants at whose instance the Reference Applications were made to the learned Reference Court are paid the entire amount of compensation as per the consent award and they have no grievance at all. He has also further stated at the bar that the respective private respondents-original claimants at whose instance the references were made, have no objection if the present petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the amount deposited by the petitioner-Corporation in the Reference Court with the respective Cases are is refunded.

Shri Amit Patel, learned AGP has also stated that as the amount of compensation as per the consent terms/award is already paid to the respective claimants and as claimants have no objection at all, he has no objection if appropriate order is passed to refund the amount to the petitioner-corporation subject to above undertaking on behalf of the petitioner-corporation and respective claimants.

8. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. respective parties.

9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that consent terms came to be arrived at between the petitioner-corporation and the respective claimants at whose instance the References have been made to the Reference Court, Amreli and the said consent terms were recorded by the Reference Court and the consent awards came to be passed. Without any further order by the Reference Court the petitioner-corporation deposited the entire amount of compensation with the Reference Court. It appears that the petitioner-Corporation felt that some time is likely to be taken in passing the order by the Reference Court and in actual making the payment/disbursement to the respective claimants and the same was likely to affect the project and, therefore, petitioner-corporation thought it fit to make the payment of compensation directly to the respective claimants by cheque after withdrawing the amount which has already deposited by the petitioner with the Reference Court and, therefore, they submitted application before the learned Reference Court permitting them to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by them so that necessary payment of compensation can be made to the respective claimants by the petitioner-corporation directly by cheque. The said applications came to be

rejected by the learned Reference Court, Amreli by holding that once the amount is deposited with the Reference Court only the said Court can make the payment. The said orders came to be challenged by the petitioner-Corporation before this Court and this Court permitted the petitioner-Corporation to make the payment of compensation as per the consent terms/award to the respective claimants /owners at whose instance the references were made directly by cheque and to obtain the receipts and thereafter to produce the same before the learned Reference Court and learned Reference Court was directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner-Corporation on production of the receipts with respect to the payment of compensation to the respective claimants /owners. The petitioner-Corporation after making the payment of compensation to the respective claimants/owners by cheque and after obtaining the receipts from the concerned claimants, produced the same before the learned Reference Court and thereafter requested the learned Reference Court to refund the said amount of compensation which were already paid by them to the respective claimants and inspite of the order passed by this Court in earlier Special Civil Application the Reference Court rejected the said application. In fact, by not refunding the amount of compensation deposited by the petitioner-Corporation, inspite of the producing the respective receipts with respect to making the payment of compensation to the respective claimants, the learned Reference Court has acted /passed an order which is contrary to order passed by this Court in earlier Special Civil Application. Apart from that when the claimants have no objection and the entire amount of compensation as per the consent terms /award is already paid to the respective claimants, the learned Reference Court ought to have refunded the said amount of compensation to the petitioner Corporation, which is lying idle and for which the respective claimants are not likely to claim as they have already received the amount of compensation. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned Reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount deposited by the petitioner-Corporation with the Reference Court which is already paid to the respective claimants for which respective claimants have no objection at all and for which petitioner-Corporation gas produced the receipts by the respective claimants along with the respective applications/purshish, is to be refunded to the petitioner-Corporation subject to complying with the statement made by Shri S.N. Shelat for the petitioner as well as Shri G.M. Amin learned advocate for the respondents-respective claimants recorded hereinabove. The larger question submitted by Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Corporation to the effect that as the amount of compensation is not deposited by the acquiring body pursuant to the any order passed by the Reference Court whether Reference Court has no jurisdiction to pass further order is kept open, to be decided in future in an appropriate case.

10. For the reasons stated above, all these petitions succeeds and the impugned orders passed by the learned

Reference Court, Amreli dated 22.9.2008 passed below applications/pursis submitted by the petitioner Corporation in respect of Land Reference Case Nos. 11 of 1994, 16 & 17 of 1994, 19 of 1994, 23 to 25 of 1994, 33 of 1994, 35 & 36 of 1994, 38 to 40 of 1994, 42 & 43 of 1994, 46 to 50 of 1994, 52 & 53 of 1994, 55 to 57 of 1994, 59 to 61 of 1994 and 64 & 65 of 1994 are hereby quashed and set aside and the Reference Court, Amreli is directed to refund the amount of compensation deposited by the petitioner Corporation deposited with the Reference Court deposited in the respective aforesaid Land Reference Cases for which the receipts are produced on or before 10.2.2009 as the said amount is lying idle without fetching any interest and the petitioner Corporation is loosing the interest on the said amount of compensation which is very huge amount. Petitioner Corporation as well as respective claimants are directed to act as per the statement made by Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shir G.M. Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-respective-claimants which is recorded hereinabove. It is further ordered and observed that in case any dispute is raised by any other co-owners and any order is passed by the Competent Court to pay the amount of compensation and / or any other amount at that stage the petitioner Corporation to make the payment of such amount irrespective of the present order and / or payment of compensation already paid to the respective claimants / owners and they shall not raise objection in future that they have already paid the amount of compensation to private respondents herein original claimants at whose instance the references have been made. Similarly, in future, if any, liability to pay the income tax on the amount of compensation arise, the respective claimants/land owners as well as petitioner Corporation will make the same good and will make payment and they will not raise objection in future that as they are already paid amount of compensation and / or Corporation has already made the amount of compensation they will not be liable to pay same. With these, all these petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.instance the references have been made. Similarly, in future, if any, liability to pay the income tax on the amount of compensation arise, the respective claimants/land owners as well as petitioner Corporation will make the same good and will make payment and they will not raise objection in future that as they are already paid amount of compensation and / or Corporation has already made the amount of compensation they will not be liable to pay same. With these, all these petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

kaushik

(M.R.SHAH,J.)