1 wp 3005.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3005 OF 2011 Madhavrao Namdeorao Patil, Age : 54 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Nandre, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents Shri Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. R. K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The reference filed by the petitioner was allowed. 2 wp 3005.11 Aggrieved by the same the respondent/State filed an appeal before this Court. This Court has admitted the appeal, but has not granted any interim stay to the award passed by the Reference Court. The petitioner filed execution. The respondent/State deposited the amount in the execution proceedings. The petitioner moved an application for withdrawal of the said amount. The executing Court imposed a condition of furnishing bank guarantee. The said order is assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. Shri Patil, the learned counsel states that the executing Court could not have imposed such an onerous condition. In fact, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the executing Court to impose such a condition. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in a case of Pandhari Gangaram Patil and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2011(2) Mh.L.J. 579 and the decision of this Court in group of matters in Writ Petition No. 819/2008 and other connected matters disposed of vide order dated 12.03.2008. 3. Mrs. Ladda, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the order has been passed long back. The same was 3 wp 3005.11 not assailed for long period of time and now the writ petition need not be entertained on the ground of delay and laches. 4. The executing Court could not have gone beyond the award passed in reference proceedings. It is only the Appellate Court which could have stayed the award passed by the Reference Court. The executing Court did not have the jurisdiction to impose such an onerous condition. This Court in a case of Pandhari Gangaram Patil referred supra and in Writ Petition No. 819/2008 and other connected matters referred supra has already held that such condition cannot be imposed. In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B" and "C". [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11