1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 911 OF 2010 Sitabai Arjun Patil ( deceased through LRs) 1 Shantaram Arjun Patil 2 Mirabai Nana Patil age major, occ. agriculture r/o Dharagir, Tq. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur -2, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer Medium Project Division Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.M. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for the respondents. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by the executing court in Regular Darkhast no. 272/2007 decided on 6-5-2009. Petitioner is the original claimant who had presented land acquisition reference to the civil court seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation payable to him. On consideration of the rival contentions, the reference court was pleased to allow the claim petition presented by the petitioner herein and the amount payable to the petitioner towards compensation in respect of acquisition of land came to be enhanced. By virtue of the award passed by the trial court, it appears that the petitioner is held entitled to receive total amount of Rs.46,670/- which is inclusive of the land value and the other benefits receivable under the Land Acquisition Act. While seeking withdrawal of the said amount the executing court has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. Infact, at the time of issuing such direction, there was no stay order received from the High Court in respect of execution of the decree nor any condition in respect of securing bank guarantee was imposed by the High Court. It was therefore not open for the 3 executing court to ask the decree holder to furnish bank guarantee while requesting for withdrawal of the amount. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment in the matter of Devidas Vitthal Tongale vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition no. 1103/2007 alongwith other matters decided on 7-3-2007. Considering the ratio laid down by this court in the judgment cited above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the executing court is unsustainable and needs to be quashed and set aside. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds. Order passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Jalgaon on 6-5-2009 in Regular Darkhst no. 272/2007 is quashed and set aside to the extent of securing bank guarantee of Nationalised bank while securing withdrawal of the amount covered by the award. Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner while securing withdrawal stands discharged. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp911.10.odt