Civil Revision No.2747 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2747 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.04.2010 Lakhi Ram & Ors. ....petitioners Versus The State of Haryana through Collector, Gurgaon & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.C.Chauhan,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): In this revision petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the payment of 50% of the awarded amount of compensation had been ordered to be released on furnishing of security/bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that similar order passed by the court below has already been quashed by this Court in Civil Revision No.3912 of 2009 decided on 12.10.2009. Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in court accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.Preeti Khanna, Advocate who is present in the court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 at the asking of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to hand over copy of the petition to them during the course of the day. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order Civil Revision No.2747 of 2010 2 impugned herein is totally without jurisdiction as there is no interim order passed by this Court in an appeal filed by the State on the basis of which the executing Court could have ordered for release of 50% of the awarded amount of compensation on furnishing of security/bank guarantee by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any specific order by this court for releasing the payment of 50% of the compensation amount on furnishing of security/bank guarantee, the same should have been released by the executing court unconditionally. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, could not raise any meaningful argument except that they supported the order passed by the executing court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders with their assistance. It is not disputed that there is no interim order passed by this Court on an appeal having been filed by the State. In the absence of the same, the amount was required to be released without any condition and the executing Court was not justified in ordering release of 50% of the compensation amount on furnishing of security/bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that similar order dated 19.01.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon has already been quashed by this Court in Civil Revision No.3912 of 2009 decided on 12.10.2009. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent whereby it directs the petitioners to furnish security/bank guarantee for the release of 50% of the amount. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.04.2010 neenu