( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1714 OF 2010 Smt. Pratibhabai Rajendra 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 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1715 OF 2010 Dhansing Hari 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 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2010 Nababai Ramdas Patil Since deceased, by her L.Rs. 1. Santosh Ramdas Patil ( 2 ) 2. Kalabai Ambarsing Patil 3. Bhimkorbai Pandurang Patil, All r/o Dharagir, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONERS 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 petitioners in all the three petitions. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for the respondents in all the three petitions. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel and learned A.G.P., heard finally. 2. Since common question is involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed of together. 3. The agricultural lands of the petitioners were 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 ( 3 ) petitioners were 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 31st July, 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 petitioners, they were allowed to withdraw compensation amount subject to furnishing of bank guarantee. 4. The petitioners challenge part of the order of the executing Court regarding requirement to furnish the bank guarantee for the withdrawal of amount. 5. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 ( 4 ) because the final outcome of the lis is awaited. However, 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. 7. Considering the settled legal position, the petitions are 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/wp1714-1715-1716-10