{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1829 OF 2009 Madhav Devrao Sarvadnya R/o Borkhed, Tq & Dist-Beed At Presenet Madhav Gunj, Lashkar Gwalehr (MP) PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Beed RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.D.Ghayal, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 23rd June 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.12.2008, passed by Principal District Judge in Land Reference Regular Darkhast No.584/2008. The petitioner has prayed for adjustment of the excess amount deposited by the {2} respondent in the proceedings pending before the same court. 3. Factual matrix, which gave rise to file the petition can be summarized as under- The reference Court, vide its judgment and award dated 02.05.1990 had enhanced the compensation in Land Reference No. 1326/1989, filed by the present petitioner. Accordingly, execution petition bearing Land Acquisition Regular Darkhast No.478/1990 was filed, which was partly satisfied and thereafter, another Darkhast bearing N.103/1995 was filed and the same came to be dismissed for default. Later on, it appears that, the Land Acquisition Regular Darkhast No.584/2006 was filed on 02.08.2006, which is still pending before the District Judge, Beed. It further appears that the respondent / State has deposited an amount in the sum of Rs.12,23,074/- in another Darkhast proceeding pending before the Principal District Judge, Beed bearing Darkhast No.948/2006, which was filed by one Ganpati V/s State. It is noticed that the amount deposited by the State in the said proceeding was excess than the amount due under the award, for which the Darkhast was filed. The recoverable amount under the said Darkhast was in the sum of Rs.32,845/-. By order dated 24.09.2008, District Judge, Beed directed the Assistant Superintendent to refund the balance amount to the State Government. It also appears that an application came to be moved on 16.10.2008, by the present petitioner requesting the Executing Court to attach the amount in the sum of Rs.42,022/- out of the {3} excess amount deposited by the State in the Darkhast No. 948/2006. This application was rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, vide order dated 02.12.2008, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. On the last occasion, at the request of learned AGP, he was allowed to call for report from the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, at whose instance the state had deposited the amount in the Executing Court. Accordingly, he has received instructions that in some execution proceedings, excess amount was deposited by the State whereas in some execution proceedings, the State has not deposited any amount under the pretext that they are fling appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. At the time of submissions, advanced across the bar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has shown certified copy of the order passed in Land Acquisition Reference Darkhast No.571/2000. Vide order dated 16.12.2008, passed in LARD No. 571/2000, the learned District Judge, Beed has attached the excess amount deposited by the State against payment of decreetal / award amount by way of adjustment. If this practice is followed by the Executing Court to attach the amount in case the same is in excess, for adjustment towards the satisfaction of the award in other proceedings, then the Executing Court cannot discriminate by passing such order in one proceeding and to reject in another. On the ground of parity also, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the premise, impugned order {4} dated 02.12.2008, is against the provisions of law and the rule of parity and hence the same requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, order dated 02.12.2008, passed by Principal District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference Darkhast No.584/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and the application dated 16.10.2008 is hereby allowed. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp1829-09