SAC 42/2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH D.B. Civil Special Appeal [Civil] No.42/2008 The State of Raj. & Anr. Versus Ramesh Chandra Dadhich & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09/08/2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. KOTHARI Mr. S.K. Saini for Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG, for the appellant Mr. Ramesh Chandra Dadhich, respondent No.1 [self] *** Though today the appeal is listed for passing interim orders on certain applications made by the parties, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties we proceed to hear the appeal finally. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to pass any orders on interlocutory applications. This is an appeal filed by the appellant of D.B. Civil Special Appeal [Civil] No.42/08 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India against the interim order dt.14/08/2008 passed by learned Single Judge in the afore-mentioned appeal i.e. CMA No.693/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application of the appellant-State holding that there is no prima facie case made out for grant of any stay in favour of the State. SAC 42/2008 [2] Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Without going into the question as to whether this intra-court appeal is maintainable against the impugned order or not. We are inclined to dispose of this appeal by passing the following order which in the facts of each case would be proper and just. It will also safeguard the rights of both the parties in pending civil misc. appeal so also after its disposal: [1] The appellant shall deposit the entire decreetal amount awarded by LAO and later modified by Reference Court in favour of respondent No.1 within a period of three months. [2] The respondent No.1 [land owner] is allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the State pursuant to award passed by LAO dt.02/06/1992 in Award Case No.81-86 later modified by Reference Court [Baran] in Reference Case No.16/92 dt.04/09/1999 & 16/12/1999 subject to his furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the concerned Reference Court. [3] The respondent shall furnish security as directed in Clause 1 within a period of three months from today as a outer limit. [4] The deposit and withdrawal made by the parties shall be subject to the result of CMA No.693/2000. In other words, in case if appeal is allowed and compensation determined by the Reference Court is reduced to any extent, then in that event, the respondent will have to deposit the amount so reduced and in the event if he fails to deposit the amount then it shall be recovered from the security so furnished by him in favour of the State pursuant to this order. SAC 42/2008 [3] In our view, the aforesaid conditions imposed by this Court will safeguard the rights of both the parties during pendency of CMA No.693/2000. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this appeal is finally disposed of. [S.S.KOTHARI], J. [A.M. SAPRE],J. FRBOHRA42SAC2008 09-08.doc