1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7575 OF 2009 1. Madhukar S/o Ramchandra Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. Dashrath S/o Ramchandra Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Special Land Acquisition } Officer No. 3, Ahmednagar. } 2. Mahadu S/o Ganga Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. Waman S/o Ganga Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.B.Kotkar, Advocate for Petitioners. 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7843 OF 2009 2. Mahadu S/o Ganga Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. Waman S/o Ganga Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Madhukar S/o Ramchandra Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 2. Dashrath S/o Ramchandra Pichad } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculure, } R/o : Pimparkane, Tq. Akole, } Dist. : Ahmednagar. } 3. The State of Maharashtra } Through Special Land Acquisition } Officer No. 3, Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for Petitioners. 3 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24/11/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By way of Writ Petition No. 7575 of 2009, the petitioners challenge the Order dated 19/9/2009 to the extent that they be exonerated from the condition of execution of P.R. Bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with solvent surety for permitting the petitioners therein to withdraw the amount awarded in land acquisition Reference. 3. Writ Petition No. 7843 of 2009 is filed by the objectors against the land acquisition proceedings challenging the same order in so far as it imposes the aforesaid condition. 4. It is not in dispute that vide an Award in LAQ/SR/2/1999, the Reference Court has held that the original claimants in L.A.R. No. 44 of 2004 namely one Madhukar and another and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7843 of 2009 and the Objectors i.e. Mahadu and another are entitled to half share each. The Order of the Reference Court U/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7575 of 2009 before this Court by way of First Appeal. However, there is no stay to the order passed by the 4 learned Reference Court. In so far the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7843 of 2009 are concerned, they have accepted the order of Reference Court regarding apportionment and not challenged the same. 5. In that view of the matter, I find that interest of justice would be made in passing following order : (i) The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7575 of 2009 are permitted to withdraw the amount falling to their share without furnishing any surety. (ii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7843 of 2009 are permitted to withdraw the amount falling to their share on furnishing an undertaking to the learned executing court that in the event the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7575 of 2009 succeed in the First Appeal, they shall refund the amount if it is found that either they are not entitled to the share in the land or that the amount paid to them is paid in excess than to what they are entitled to. 6. Both the Writ Petitions disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7575.........09