ORDER

Misc. Case Nos. 8 and 21 of 2006

3.5.2007 — This is a petition by the claimant-respondent No. 1 seeking direction of this Court to the appellant to deposit the entire awarded amount and to allow him (R-1) to withdraw 50% of such deposited amount without furnishing any guarantee or securi¬ty and the balance 50% by furnishing bank guarantee or property security. According to the claimant-respondent, her lands were acquired in the year 1983 for Bidanasi Triangular Development Project, but till date she has not received the compensation for the lands as the matter is still pending for determination of the fair mraket price, as a result, she is undergoing undue hardship and irreparable injury. Counter affidavit has been filed by the appellant wherein it is stated that in view of Order 27, Rule 8-A of the C.P.C., the State Government cannot be asked to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security contemplated under Order 41, Rule 1(3) or Order 41, Rule 5 (5) of the C.P.C.

Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent stated that as per the provision of Order 41, Rule 1 (3) and Order 41, Rule 5(5) of the C.P.C. an appellant shall deposit the differential decretal amount or furnish security for such amount in order to obtain an order of stay of the decree. He states that despite existence of Order 27, Rule 8-A of the C.P.C., the State-appellant has to make the deposit as Order 41, CPC no where exempts the State Government or the Development Authority from depositing the decretal amount and considering this aspect the depositing the decretal amount and considering this aspect the apex Court and this Court have in many cases directed a State-appellant to deposit the entire or part of the decretal dues as a condition for grant of stay. In support of his contention he relied on the cases of State of Orissa and another v. Pratibha Prakash Bhawan etc., 69(1990) CLT 323; State of U.P. v. Ratan Lal etc., Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. Dyavappa and others 1995 LACC 637; Chief General Manager, Telecom, Orissa v. V.N.Enterprises, A Partnership Form and four others, 2004 (I) OLR 687.

It is also argued that the Land Acquisition Act is a special and self-contained Act where deposit of the awarded amount at different stages of the proceedings is contemplated and as such the provisions of the Order 27, Rule 8-A of the C.P.C. would not be applicable in appeal filed under Sec. 54 of the L.A.Act as provisions of C.P.C., which are inconsistent with the provisions of the L.A.Act, have been made non-applicable to L.A. proceedings including appeals. In support of this plea, learned counsel cited the cases of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457; Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 71.

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended per contra that the provisions of Order 27, Rule 8-A CPC not being in conflict with the provisions of L.A.Act, the same would be applicable to L.A.proceedings. He states that right from the beginning the State Government has been exempted from demand of security or deposit in appeals as a condition for grant of stay as even before Order 27, Rule 8-A C.P.C. came into force there was Order 41, Rule 7, C.P.C. in this regard. He explained that this exemption has been provided, as solvency of the State Government cannot be doubted. In support of this contention he relied on the case of Collector, Cuttack v. Padma Charan Mohanty, 50 (1980) CLT 191. He further argued that the cases cited by the claimant-respondent would not be of any help as they do not lay down any ratio and never considered the provision of Order 27, Rule 8-A of the C.P.C. before passing the orders.

In view of the rival submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points emerge for consideration :

(i) Whether in an appeal under Sec. 54 of the L.A.Act the State without deposit of the differential decretal amount can get order of stay of the execution proceeding ?

(ii) Whether in v