1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4306 OF 2009 Sidram s/o Gurunath Pattu, Age: Major,Occ: Agril., R/o. Babhalgaon, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the District Collector, Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 2 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the communication/direction issued by the S.L.A.O. dated 28-05-2009 directing the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee for withdrawing amount of compensation awarded under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. In the present case, the respondent - S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 dated 03-08-1989 for acquiring the petitioners' land for percolation tank at Babhalgaon, Tal. Tuljapur District Osmanabad. After following due process of law, S.L.A.O. passed award and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land. At that time, the petitioners have not challenged the said award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some other claimants challenged the award passed by the S.L.A.O. under Section 18 of the said Act in L.A.R. Nos. 19/1995, 18/1995, 20/1995, 21/1995 and 22/1995. These Land Acquisition References were decided 3 on 24-09-2003 by the Civil Judge, S.D. Osmanabad and awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hector. On the basis of judgment and award dated 24-09-2003 in L.A.R. No.19/1995 and other connected matters, the petitioners preferred application under Section 28-A of the said Act for additional compensation. Said applications decided by the S.L.A.O. by award dated 04-10-2008 and awarded enhanced compensation to the petitioners. For withdrawal of the said enhanced compensation amount, S.L.A.O. issued communication/direction dated 28-05-2009 directing the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee of any Nationalised bank. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners state that the S.L.A.O. have no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee for withdrawal of the amount under Section 28-A of the said Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the 4 judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of Chandar s/o Rajaram Rupmwar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in W.P. No. 6781/2006 dated 08-01-2007 ( Coram : Naresh H. Patil, & R.M. Borde, JJ.). Division Bench of this Court held that the competent authority i.e. S.L.A.O. can not ask Bank guarantee from the claimants who seek withdrawal of the amount granted to them in award under Section 28-A of the said Act. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the present petition on the ground that the State preferred First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 24-09-2003 passed by the Civil Judge, S.D. Osmanabad in L.A.R.No. 19/1995 being F.A. No. 2040/2009. Said appeal admitted by this Court on 20-08-2009. 6. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents admitted that, no Civil Application 5 preferred by them for stay in First Appeal No. 2040/2009. In any case, considering the order dated 08-01-2007 in W.P. No.6781/2006 (supra), I am of the opinion that the S.L.A.O./competent authority have no power to call upon the claimants to furnish bank guarantee for withdrawing amount granted to them by award under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish solvent surety to the respondents except bank guarantee for withdrawal of amount. Said statement is accepted. 7. In the facts and circumstances of present case, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B, which reads as under. "(B) The impugned orders/communication dtd 28/5/2009 issued by the respondent no. 2 (At Exhibit-C Colly) be quashed and set 6 aside. Consequently the petitioners be paid amount of compensations in terms of award passed by the respondent no. 2 dtd 4/10/2008 under section 28- A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without furnishing bank guarantee and for that purpose necessary direction be issued.", on condition that the petitioners shall approach S.L.A.O. Osmanabad afresh with a request to disburse the said amount and in case, such application is received by the concerned S.L.A.O., he shall dispose of the same in the light of order passed by this Court without any further delay, in any case, within four weeks from the receipt of the application. 8. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/SEP09/wp4306.09