(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6310 OF 2009 1. Suresh Bhaggu Chavan, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. 2. Mangu Dhansing Rathod, Age : 74 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. 3. Bhiku Thawaru Chavan, Died, through L.Rs. : A] Shantabai Bhiku Chavan, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. B] Ramchandra Bhiku Chavan, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. C] Rohidas Bhiku Chavan, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. (2) D] Kailash Bhiku Chavan, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. E] Meerabai Bhau, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. F] Shardabai Bhima Rathod, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. 4. Devidas Mangu Rathod, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Petitioners R/o. Amba, Taluka : Kannad, (Original District : Aurangabad. claimants) versus The Special Land Acquisition .. Respondents Officer, M.I.W., Aurangabad. (Original respondent) .......................... (3) Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondent. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the direction given by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, regarding furnishing the bank guarantee, in Regular Darkhast Nos. 285/2005, 281/2005, 286/2005 and 284/2005. The petitioners have further prayed to allow them to revoke the bank guarantee furnished in the said Darkhasts. 3. It is not in dispute that the facts in the present case are identical with the facts in Writ Petition No. 4103/2009, which is allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court vide judgment dated 3rd August 2009. In that view of the matter, the present petition also deserves to be allowed. (4) 4. Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6310