(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8152 OF 2009 Shri Kautik s/o. Dagadu Patil, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Farmer, R/o. Shingait, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, UTPH, Vaghur Project, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, UTPH-1, Vaghur Project, District : Jalgaon. 3. Superintending Engineer, Tapi Development Corporation, Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. R.M. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 served (Absent). (2) .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. None for respondent nos.2 and 3, though duly served with notice for final disposal. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 17th April 2009, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon, in Regular Darkhast Nos. 530/2008 and 532/2008, to the extent it directs the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for withdrawal of the amount of compensation. 4. The land of the petitioner was acquired for Waghur Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, had passed award dated 18th August 2000, thereby granting compensation. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred a reference court. The reference court had enhanced the compensation vide order dated 4th November 2008. In the execution proceedings filed by the petitioner, the executing court has put the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for withdrawal of the amount. Hence, the present petition. (3) 5. Admittedly, there is no stay to the award passed by the reference court. The awards are in the nature of money decree which is normally not to be stayed. This court in several matters, allowed the petitions and permitted the claimants to withdraw the amount without furnishing bank guarantee. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses "B" and "C". There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8152