1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4715 OF 2008 Narayan S/o.Sonu Barkale, Age-Major, Occu-Agri. R/o.Khadgaon, Tal.Jamner, Dist : Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon UTPH-1 2] Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon RESPONDENTS Mr.A.V.Patil,with Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for petitioner, Mr.K.J.Ghutepatil, AGP for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 10/06/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India, passed by the Civil Judge, S.D. Jalgaon in R.D.No.342/2006 by which the Executing Court have 2 directed the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee while withdrawing the amount granted by the Reference Court in this award under the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Act by the Reference Court, i.e. Civil Judge, S.D. Jalgaon while permitting to withdrawal of the amount of the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, the judgment and award passed by the common judgment is dated 06/01/2006. During the course of submissions across the bar, copy of the judgment passed in WP No. 2956 of 2008, dated 4th June 2008 passed by this Court (Coram – Naresh H.Patil, J.) wherein there is reference of the judgment in writ petition no.3994 of 202 and in writ petition no.4670 of 2002. In the judgment passed in both these petitions, it was observed that in such situation, the Trial Court need not ask for furnishing the bank guarantee while the claimant prays for withdrawal of amount. 5. The facts of the present writ petitions are identical as in the matters of which reference is given in para supra, today when the writ petition came up on board for hearing, instructions were taken by learned AGP that appeal is preferred against the judgment of reference court in connection with the present writ petition, which was admitted on 14/03/2008, but till date, no interim stay is granted to the execution of the award challenged under the appeal. In such circumstances, the observations made by this Court in the judgment referred in above paragraph cited supra, they are squarely applicable to the present writ petition also. 3 6. In the premise, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set aside and the petition is to be allowed accordingly. 7. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above in terms of prayer clause “B” with no order as to costs. Writ petition thus stands disposed of. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp4715-08