jpc 1 wp9186-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9186 OF 2011 Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar and another ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for the petitioners Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, AGP for the respondent CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable on forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 30th June, 2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag- Raigad by which order, the application being Civil Application No. 30 of 2011 came to be allowed and the direction as contained in clause 2 of the operative part of the said order to the effect that the amount of Rs. 1,03,854/- which is lying in deposit in with the Bank of Maharashtra, Alibag Branch from 10th August, 2010 be paid over to the applicant no. 1 by a demand draft after after identifying all the applicants and jpc 2 wp9186-11.sxw obtaining Indemnity Bond from each of them. It is the said direction contained in operative clause 2 of the impugned order which is taken exception to. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 has a power of attorney in his favour from the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 who are the owners of land which has been acquired and in respect of which the compensation is lying in deposit in the Bank of Maharashtra. It is further further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Reference as well as the First Appeal were prosecuted by the petitioner no.1 as a power of attorney holder of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. Therefore, the directions as contained in paragraph two of the impugned order requiring all the applicants to file indemnity bond as also their identification are unwarranted and unjustified. 4. The above petition appeared for admission, and on the earlier occasion, the learned AGP was directed to take instructions as to whether any SLP has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in the First Appeal No. 104 of 1991 and 614 of 1991, being the appeal and cross objections filed by the claimants and the State. The learned AGP, on obtaining the instructions has stated today that no SLP jpc 3 wp9186-11.sxw has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said Appeals. 5. In view of the fact that the Petitioner no.1 has been prosecuting the litigation as a power of attorney of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, who are the owners of the land in question, in my view the trial Court has erred in issuing the directions as contained in clause (2) of the operative part of the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kamble states that instead of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 furnishing the Indemnity Bond, the power of attorney i.e. the petitioner no.1 would furnish the Indemnity Bond in respect of the entire amount that would be payable to the petitioners. Hence the following directions: 6. The directions as contained in Clause No.2 of the Operative part of the impugned order are set aside and substituted as follows: i. The petitioner No.1 would furnish furnish an Indemnity Bond for the entire amount lying in deposit, that would be payable to the claimants and he would receive the said amount on behalf of the claimants. ii. A Demand Draft be drawn in favour of the Petitioner no.1 and he would accept the said amount on behalf of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 and execute the receipt of the same in favour of the State. jpc 4 wp9186-11.sxw iii. Indemnity Bond should indemnify the State against all claims that would be made in respect of the said amount and that would be payable to the petitioner not on behalf of the claimants. It is only on furnishing such Indemnity Bond and on his identification that the said amount would be paid over to the Petitioner no.1. iv. Since the learned AGP has made a statement that no SLP has been filed in the Apex Court as yet, the Indemnity Bond would be kept alive up to 30th June, 2012. In the event the State informs the petitioner no.1 as regards any SLP filed by the State a week prior to 30th June, 2012, the indemnity continued as aforesaid would come to an end . v. In the event the indemnity is not furnished by the Petitioner no. 1, he would not be entitled to withdraw the said amount. vi. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and substituted as aforesaid. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the the above terms with the parties to bear their own costs. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)