1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5986 OF 2010 1. Shri. Popat Pandharinath Patil, Age 75 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, 2. Bhanudas Namdeo Patil, Age 36 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, 3. Amrut Namdeo Patil, Age 30 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, 4. Mahadu Namdeo Patil, (Since deceased through L.Rs.) Minabai Mahadu Patil, Age 34 yrs., Occu. Agriculture. (1) Pravin Mahadu Patil, Age 9 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, (2) Subham Mahadu Patil, Age 7 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, (3) Kum. Jyoti Mahadu Patil, Age 11 yrs., Occu. No. 1 Minabai Mahadu Patil, 5. Janabai Pandurang Patil, Age 49 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, 6. Ushabai Bhanudas Patil, Age 41 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, 7. Indubai Namdeo Patil, Age 71 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, All R/o. Dharagir, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioners. Versus 2 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnoor-2, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ....Respondents. Mr. R.M. Patil, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.B. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 3rd February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has filed execution proceedings for executing award passed by the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said execution proceedings the judgment debtor deposited the amount. The petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of the said amount deposited by the respondent - State. The Executing Court allowed the applicant to withdraw the amount, but with rider that the petitioner shall submit a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank of the like amount. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present writ petition. 3 3. Shri. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that once the award has been passed by the Reference Court, the Executing Court cannot go behind the award and would have no jurisdiction to impose such condition, the said condition is onerous one, there is no stay in operation. The learned counsel further contends that the State had filed the appeal beyond the period of limitation, the application for condonation of delay itself is rejected, as such, the appeal is also not registered, in absence of the same the order impugned is not sustainable. 4. Shri. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader supports the order passed by the Court below. 5. Executing Court is duty bound to execute the award. Executing Court cannot impose any conditions unless the Appellate Court directs otherwise. In the present matter, even the appeal filed by the State is not registered inasmuch as it's application for condonation of delay is itself rejected. 6. The order directing the petitioner to submit the bank guarantee of the like amount in executing proceedings was beyond the purview and jurisdiction of the Executing Court. Under no provisions of law the Executing Court could have passed such an order. 4 7. In the light of the same, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application, Exh. 14, filed by the present petitioner for withdrawal of the amount is allowed and the order directing the petitioner to submit the bank guarantee is also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses "B" and "C". [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] ssc/wp5986.10