IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 9022 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Sube Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 7. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing order dated 4.11.2008 (P-6) passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector. The Collector has directed recovery of the amount of compensation paid to the petitioners till the decision by the Civil Court. The Collector has also declined to refer the objections filed by the private respondents to the Civil Court. When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 3.6.2009, while issuing notice of motion, the Division Bench has directed that subject to the petitioners furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, recovery of the CWP No. 9022 of 2009 compensation already paid to them shall remain stayed. It is undisputed that the civil suit, which has been filed before announcement of award, is still pending adjudication at the evidence stage. It is also undisputed that the land was acquired and as per the revenue record the land stood in the name of the petitioners on the basis of gift deed. The private respondents have challenged the gift deed dated 15.10.1952 as well as the title of the petitioners based on the aforesaid gift deed. Mr. Kulbhushan Shrma, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gobind Ram v. Kora Ram, 1990 (1) RRR 291. According to the ratio of the aforesaid judgment the Collector cannot issue direction to the land owners to re-deposit the amount of compensation in the Reference Court. However, it can pass suitable orders like furnishing of security to protect the interest of the rival claimants. Accordingly, we are of the view that the security which has been furnished by the petitioners to the satisfaction of the Collector shall be deemed final and no recovery till the decision of the Civil Court shall be effected from the petitioners. However, the payment made to the petitioners shall remain subject to furnishing of security till that time. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 12, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2