(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7688 OF 2009 Sau. Nirmalabai w/o. Baburao Mengshetti, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Tugaon, Taluka : Omerga, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra [Through the Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32]. 2. The Collector, Osmanabad. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (P.L. & L.S.K.) No.1, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. A.L. Tikle, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 22nd May 2008, issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad, thereby directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 6,38,050/- for withdrawal of the amount. The petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 6th August 2008 issued by the respondent no.3, thereby communicating the petitioner that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee, for withdrawal of the amount, cannot be relaxed. 3. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the State for Medium Project, Benitura (Taluka Umarga, District : Osmanabad). The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 24th September 1992. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for enhancement of compensation. The Collector allowed the application partly and granted compensation of Rs. 6.67,888/-. By the impugned communications, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has insisted for furnishing bank guarantee for withdrawing the amount of (3) compensation by the petitioner. 4. Admittedly there is no stay to the award passed by the Collector. The award is in the nature of money decree which is normally not to be stayed. This court in several matters allowed the petitions and permitted the claimints to withdraw the amount without furnishing bank guarantee. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses "B" and "C". There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/7688wp