( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3247 OF 2010 Bhanusing Govinda Patil, R/o Dharagir, Tq. Erandol, District Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur-2, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.M. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for the respondents/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel and learned A.G.P., heard finally. 2. The agricultural land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents. A notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published and after completing the procedure, compensation amount was determined. The petitioner ( 2 ) was aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and, therefore, sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference was made to the civil Court. The Reference Court enhanced quantum of compensation to certain extent as per the award dated 20th April, 2006. The respondent No. 1 deposited the awarded amount in the executing Court after about a couple of years from the date of judgement. On application of the petitioner, he was allowed to withdraw compensation amount subject to furnishing of bank guarantee. 3. The petitioner challenges part of the order of the executing Court regarding requirement to furnish the bank guarantee for the withdrawal of amount. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a common judgement delivered by this Court in writ petition No. 3457/2002, etc. This Court held that the imposition of condition of furnishing bank guarantee, by the executing Court, was improper. It is permissible to impose such condition during pendency of suit or reference application because the final outcome of the lis is awaited. However, ( 3 ) during course of execution petition, the decree is the final outcome of the decision of the Court and, therefore, the executing Court should not impose such condition. In other words, imposition of such condition is onerous when the amount is to be paid during course of execution of a decree. The proper course for the J.D. is to seek necessary stay orders from the appellate Court. It is stated that the appeal is filed but no stay order has been issued so far. 6. Considering the settled legal position, the petition is allowed. The impugned order regarding imposition of condition to furnish bank guarantee is set aside. The executing Court to pass further orders regarding discharge of bank guarantee in the matter. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp3247-10