IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3912 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 Sanjay Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate for respondent No.3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed by the claimant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is for setting aside the order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 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 petitioner submitted that the order 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 C.R. No. 3912 of 2009 -2- guarantee by the petitioner. 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 the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order 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. In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed of and the impugned order is set aside to the extent whereby it directs the petitioner to furnish security/bank guarantee for the release of 50% of the amount. October 12, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE