C.R. No.268 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.268 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.01.2010. Patram .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 05.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Land of petitioner and proforma respondent Nos.4 to 12 was acquired by State of Haryana. On reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, compensation amount for the acquired land was enhanced. State of Haryana has filed first appeal in this Court challenging the said enhancement by District Court and the said first appeal is still pending. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner and proforma respondents have filed execution petition wherein enhanced compensation amount was deposited. The Executing Court i.e learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide impugned order dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) ordered that half of the amount be released to the decree-holder on furnishing of security and remaining half without security. Pursuant to order (Annexure P-1), the petitioner and some proforma C.R. No.268 of 2010 -2- respondents furnished security/bank guarantee which was accepted vide impugned order dated 05.08.2009 (Annexure P-2). Now the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition alleging that the petitioner could not be ordered to furnish security for release of half of the amount. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner and proforma respondents could not be directed by the executing Court to furnish security for release of 50% amount. The contention cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Impugned order (Annexure P-1), directing the decree-holders i.e petitioner and proforma respondents to furnish security, was passed on 21.07.2009. However, the instant revision petition was preferred on 24.12.2009 i.e more than 5 months after the passing of the order. The revision petition is thus barred by delay and latches. There is no explanation whatsoever for the aforesaid delay of more than 5 months. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner in pursuance of order (Annexure P-1) has already furnished bank guarantee and the amount has already been released to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is estopped from filing the instant petition and the petition is also infructuous. Dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 18.01.2010. A.Kaundal