C.R. No.6622 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6622 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Gopi .... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Shiv Narayan, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S. Batta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) The claimant-petitioner has impugned order dated 24th February, 2009 passed by the Executing Court, Gurgaon, whereby the Executing Court has directed that 50% payment of compensation amount be given to the decree holders on furnishing security/Bank guarantee and the remaining 50% payment be released without security. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and that the Executing Court is not empowered to put such a stringent condition for release of payment of compensation amount to the land owners as such a condition for release of 50% payment to the decree holders on furnishing security/bank guarantee was unwarranted. C.R. No.6622 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: Learned counsel, relied upon orders of this court dated 12th Octorber, 2009 passed in Civil Revision No.3912 of 2009 (Samay Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others) and dated February 10, 2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 848 of 2010 (Dharam Pal and another versus State of Haryana and others), wherein this Court had set aside the identical order passed by the Additional District Judge. 3. Learned State counsel could not dispute the factual submission relating to the aforestated Civil Revisions decided by this Court on identical issues. 4. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Executing Court is set aside in terms of orders dated 12.10.2009 and 10.02.2010. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 20, 2011 sukhpreet C.R. No.6622 of 2010 (O & M) ::3::