JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Bharat Vyas waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no. 4.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bodeli, Dist. Chhota Udepur in Execution Petition No.09 /2018 and the Execution Petition be allowed with costs;

(c) That pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bodeli, Dist. Chhota Udepur in Execution Petition No.09 /2018 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to deposit the difference amount of award in the accounts of the petitioners;

(d) That ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of the aforesaid prayer clause be granted;

(e) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any other and further relief as deemed fit and expedient by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

3. As the issue is only in respect of the fact that while making the payment of amount of compensation whether the State Authorities can deduct the amount of TDS from the amount of compensation or not, which is agitated by way of this petition and as learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia for learned advocate Ms. Medha H. Patel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13528 of 2017 decided on 28.08.2017, this petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia for learned advocate Ms. Medha H. Patel for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Bharat Vyas for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the respondent no.4. Though served no-one appears for the respondent no. 3.

5. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:-

The present petitioner’s land was acquired for the purpose of construction and rehabilitation of ousters under the Narmada Canal Project and the Land Reference Case No. 2003 of 2000 was preferred by the present petitioner for enhancement of the compensation. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2009 partly allowed the Land Reference Cases. The petitioner – original claimant therefore was held entitled to get the additional market price of his acquired land at the rate of Rs. 21.48 along with 30% solatium and interest. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.12.2009, the acquiring body i.e. Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Rehabilitation preferred First Appeal No. 2157 of 2010 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 30.07.2010 admitted the appeals. This Court in the Civil Application for stay vide order dated 30.07.2010 issued rule and granted stay against the execution and implementation of the judgment and order of the Reference Court by imposing condition that the entire amount awarded to be deposited before this Court within a stipulated time. Thereafter, the acruiring body - Narmada Project Rehabilitation preferred a Civil Application for modification of the order dated 30.07.2010 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2010. It seems that thereafter, the present respondent acquiring body could not deposit the amount as directed by this Court while granting the stay and admitting the First Appeal vide order dated 30.07.2010 and therefore, Division Bench of this Cour