1 CA No.7738 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.7738 of 2011 In First Appeal No.124 Of 2011 Rajendra Ganpatrao Ashtekar. .. Applicant. Versus Union of India and Another. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. Mahesh P Patil, Advocate, for applicant. Shri. D.V. Soman, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL And A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 2nd SEPTEMBER 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Perused the record. 3) By an order dated 21st February 2011 the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: D.B. Bhosale and R.M. Borde, JJ.) disposed of Civil Application No.16321 of 2010 filed by the appellant - Union of India by directing the 2 CA No.7738 of 2011 appellant to deposit 50% of the total compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and award. On the said condition the Court granted stay to the execution of the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1246 of 1999 passed on 10th February 2010. 4) We have perused the record and the findings reached by the Reference Court. The applicant has placed reliance on the sale instances by referring to sale deeds at Exhibits 23 and 24. The sale deed at Exhibit 23 was executed on 13-9-1995 and the sale deed at Exhibit 24 was executed on 16-9-1995. The land which is subjected to acquisition was from Survey No.20 of village Baswantpur. Section 4 Notification was published on 10th February 1996. Learned counsel for the applicant refers to the award passed in respect of Land Acquisition References of lands adjacent to the subject land. 5) Learned counsel Shri.Soman for the respondent/ original appellant submits that the Reference Court had awarded exorbitant compensation compared to what the Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted. The counsel 3 CA No.7738 of 2011 submits that the claimant had produced sale deeds of plots which were smaller in size compared to the size of the applicant's land. It is submitted that in case the Court is permitting withdrawal of the amount then appropriate guarantee is required to be furnished by the claimant. The counsel has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Digamber Bhimashankar Tandale, 1996(2) SCC 583. 6) We have considered the submissions,perused the judgment. In the light of the facts and the evidence on record we pass following order: 7) The applicant claimant is permitted to withdraw an amount of 50% of the awarded amount by the Reference Court which is deposited in the Reference Court on the following conditions:- (A) Half of the amount deposited in the Reference Court is permitted to be withdrawn without furnishing surety. (B) In respect of remaining half of the amount the applicant shall furnish bank guarantee of nationalized / scheduled bank to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. 4 CA No.7738 of 2011 (C) The Bank Guarantee shall be kept in operation till final disposal of the appeal. (D) The applicant shall furnish an undertaking to the registry of this Court that in case the appeal is allowed the applicant would return the said amount with the registry of this Court. The Reference Court shall disburse the amount only on applicant furnishing proof of filing of undertaking to the registry of this Court. We are not inclined to grant prayer clause (C), it is rejected. The civil application is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (A.H. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl