JUDGMENT B.N. Krishnan J.--These appeals are presented against an interim order made in Writ Petition No. 3545 of 1990 and also rejecting the application - I.A. - II, made by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition praying for modification of the interim order. 2. Brief facts the case are these : Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were the owners of a premises situate in Jayanagar in the City of Bangalore. An agreement was entered into between them and the first respondent for the sale of the said premises to the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 35,50,000. After the entering into of the agreement was reported to the Income Tax authorities on November 26, 1989, they initiating action under section 269UD of the Act for acquiring the said property. Accordingly, the property was acquired and the Department paid Rs. 35,50,000 to the appellants. On receipt of the said amount according to the appellants, they paid Rs. 7,50,000 to their sisters and the balance had been deposited in I.D. B.I. bonds and other securities. At this stage, the first respondent filed the writ petition. In the said writ petition an interim order has been made staying further proceedings, subject to the condition that the appellants should furnish a bank guarantee. The appellants, thereafter, filed an application for modifying that interim order on the ground that there was no justification for compelling the appellants to furnish a bank guarantee. That application was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have presented these appeals. 3. Sri Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there was no justification for asking the appellants to furnish bank guarantee for the reason that the possession of the entire property has been taken by the Income Tax Department and the amount of Rs. 35,50,000 paid to the appellants has been paid or deposited, as stated earlier. Learned counsel further submitted that the property which was in the possession of the Department constitutes sufficient security for the amount paid by the Department to the appellants. He submitted that there was no justification for asking the appellants to furnish a bank guarantee when the appellants are not in a position to furnish a bank guarantee for such a huge amount. 4. He submitted that there was no justification for asking the appellants to furnish a bank guarantee when the appellants are not in a position to furnish a bank guarantee for such a huge amount. 4. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that, as the possession of the property has been taken by the Department and that property itself is worth much more than Rs. 35,50,000, that itself serves as sufficient security and, therefore, there is no justification to ask the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee. 5. In the result, we make the following order : (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The interim order made in the writ petition is modified and the direction that the appellant should furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 35,50,000 is set aside.