IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1324 of 2009 1. Santosh Kumar Pathak 2. Sanjiv Kumar Pathak Both sons of Arun Kumar Pathak resident of village Raghunathpur P.S. Nokha Dist. Rohtas Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram 2. District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram 3. Chief Engineer, Eastern Central Railway, Mugalsarai, UP Opposite parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr Arun Kumar Lal, Advocate For the State: AC to Additional Advocate General III For Opposite Party no.3: Mr Sandeep Jha, Advocate -------------- 02 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for he Railways. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 06.07.2009 by which learned Subordinate Judge III, Sasaram (Rohtas) refused to allow the petitioners to withdraw the cheque deposited by the Railways in Land Acquisition Case no. 22 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid Land Acquisition Case was started after reference made by the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said case was allowed by the learned court below vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2008 fixing valuation of Rs 4 lakh per acres along with interest and soletium etc. 4. It transpires that against the aforesaid judgment and decree, First Appeal no. 108 of 2008 has been filed by the opposite parties which is pending in the High Court but no order of stay of - 2 - further proceeding of the leaned court below has been passed in the first appeal till date. 5. It also transpires that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court below, the opposite parties deposited cheque of Rs 9,27,942/- in the court of learned Subordiane Judge III, Rohtas on 18.02.2009 (Annexure 1) where after the petitioners filed applications on 24.02.2009 and 09.04.2009 (Annexures 2 and 3) for allowing them to withdraw the cheque . To the said applications a rejoinder dated 18.05.2009 was filed on behalf of the State. 6. Thereafter the petitioners again filed an application on 22.06.2009 for handing over the cheque to them as they were in great need of money and were also ready to give security. The said prayer of the petitioners has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 06.07.2009 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the learned court below has allowed the petitioners to deposit the cheque in the State Bank of India in fixed deposit for one year and restrained them from withdrawing the said amount without obtaining any prior permission from the court. 8. The ground on which the said order was passed as mentioned therein is that since the appeal of the opposite parties is pending in the High Court, the judgment and decree of the lower court - 3 - may be set aside or modified and hence if such an order is passed the authorities will face difficulty in recovery of the amount from the petitioners. 9. In any view of the matter this ground can not be a legal and proper reason for depriving the petitioners from the money which is consideration of their lands acquired by the opposite parties. By this method the petitioners are not only being deprived from their lands but also from the value of the lands fixed by the court below itself for such a long period which is quite illegal and unjust specifically when the petitioners are ready to furnish security. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the learned court below dated 06.07.2009 passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 22 of 2006 by learned Subordinate Judge III, Sasaram (Rohtas) is hereby set aside and the learned court below is directed to allow the applications of the petitioners to permit them to withdraw the amount as per cheque given by opposite parties in view of the decree passed in the Land Acquisition case. However, the learned court below will make it subject to proper security being furnished by the petitioners. 11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions this civil revision is allowed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)