WA 426/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.S. GARG THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Kakoti, le arned counsel for respondents 1 to 34 and Mr. B. Dey, learned Advocate General M izoram for respondents 35 to 39. The respondent No. 1 to 34 have filed this writ petition seeking the rel ief that the award made in favour of the said petitioners be directed to be exec uted by the competent authority and the amount of compensation be paid to the pe titioners. The State of Mizoram contended before the learned Single Judge that t he writ petitioners committed no mistake by submitting that NEEPCO was a necessa ry party for execution of the award. The learned Single Judge in para 5 recorded that the grievances of the petitione rs appear to be non-execution of the award so passed by the competent authority. However in para 6, the learned single Judge observed that the award could be ex ecuted against the State Government, however after observing so in para 7, the l earned Single Judge observed that since the matter relates to the execution of t he award passed in Land acquisition case by the collector, the remedy of the pet itioners would be to file necessary execution petition and not by way of filing writ petition. In paragraph 8 the learned Single Judge observed that the amount could be recovered from present appellant. Being aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Single Judge in p ara 6 and 8 of the order under challenge the appellant have filed the present wr it appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the award was m ade against the State Government, and the present appellant was not a party befo re the collector or in the reference proceeding, then at this stage the learned Single Judge could not observe that the award can be put into execution against the present appellant. It is also submitted by him that if the learned Single Ju dge was not interfering into the matter then there was no reason to make such ob servation against the present appellant. The learned counsel for the State Gover nment however submitted that the award is to be executed as it is and the liabil ity of the parties may be decided by the executing Court. Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learn ed counsel for the respondent 1 to 34 however submits that the observation made in para 6/8 of the order of the learned Single Judge were not required to be mad e but if such observation have been made those are justifiable observations. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the recor d we are of the considered opinion that the scope of the writ petition could not be enlarged. The writ petitioners have come to the Court submitting that the aw ard made in their favour long back was not being put into execution and as it wa s not satisfied, the High Court should interfere into the matter. In a case like that, the High Court either could interfere into the matter by directing the St ate Government to pay the money or as observed by the learned Single Judge could ask the petitioners to approach the Land acquisition Officer or Court. In a matter where there is little scope for interference, the learned Single Jud ge should not have made observations as made by him in para 6/8 of the judgment. The observations made in para 6/8 of the judgment under appeal are hereby set a side. The parties would be free to settle their scores before the appropriate fo rum. The appeal to the extent indicated above is allowed.