JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakrborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By the order dated 02.06.2017 this Court observed as under: “...........There shall be an endeavour to hear the matter in terms of the order dated 05.05.2017.” 3. But the respondents have not filed any reply as yet. However, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, leaned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the original owner of the acquired land, namely, Sri. Priyalal Debnath had two wives during his lifetime and this fact can be had from the registered will (Anenxure-3 to the writ petition). On instruction, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the first wife has instituted a civil suit questioning the execution of the will by Priyalal Debnath, since deceased. 4. From a bare reading of the Will or the last testament, it appears that schedule-1 appearing in the said will has been entirely acquired in the acquisition proceeding under LA Case No. 13/AR/BLG/2015 for purpose of Building (widening/four laining etc.), maintenance and operation of NH-44 under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. 5. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has submitted that acting on the registered will the relevant Khatian being 2749 after mutation has been opened in the name of the petitioner, namely, Mira Das (Debnath). The petitioner had received the notice of acquisition from the Competent Authority in respect of the proceeding drawn under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. By the communication dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) the petitioner was informed that she was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 13,38,398/-. The petitioner was further instructed to receive the said sum from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh on 12.05.2016 and for appearing in person or through any representative by executing registered power of attorney. 6. By the notice dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) the petitioner was further informed that she was entitled to receive further compensation of Rs. 2,36,211/- and she may receive the same from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh. On that day, when the petitioner appeared she was denied the payment on stating that there is some dispute regarding the ownership of the land. 2,36,211/- and she may receive the same from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh. On that day, when the petitioner appeared she was denied the payment on stating that there is some dispute regarding the ownership of the land. The petitioner waited for some time and on 15.03.2017 served a notice of demand (Anenxure-7 to the writ petition) for releasing the amount as recorded in those communications within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such notice. But no positive result yielded. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has categorically stated that unless the suit is decided, the Competent Authority is not in a position to release the said amount and that is the reason why the payment has been withheld. 8. Apparently all the documents relating to the land are in favour of the petitioner. The will is a registered one and acting on that the old Khatian has been mutated and the new Khatian has been opened in favour of the petitioner. This Court does not know the basis on what the other person has claimed that the succession has been regulated by way of Will. However, if any person is aggrieved by any action, he/she has the right to file the appropriate suit for adjudication by the Civil Court. 9. This Court has to admit that there exists an adjudicable civil dispute. However, in the same time, the legitimate payment cannot be deferred merely for the pendency of a suit if the said money can be properly secured by obtaining security from the person who will be receiving the said amount. 10. Having regard to all these aspects, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: The respondents are directed to pay the awarded amount, as stated above, to the petitioner subject to furnishing the bank guarantee in respect of the total amount initially for a period of three years favouring the Competent Authority from a nationalized bank. However, the said bank guarantee shall be extendable at the instance of the Competent Authority and to that extent due certificate must be attached by the Bank which shall issue the bank guarantee. However, the said bank guarantee shall be extendable at the instance of the Competent Authority and to that extent due certificate must be attached by the Bank which shall issue the bank guarantee. Only after furnishing of the said bank guarantee and on furnishing of the due indemnity bond undertaking that if the civil court decides the dispute differently the petitioner shall refund the entire amount to the Competent Authority for disbursing the same to the person who will be held competent to receive the same amount in terms of the finding that would be returned in the suit. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Competent Authority and the SDM, Bishalgarh.