CR 137 of 2007 along with CR Nos. 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140 & 141 of 2007. CR 137 of 2007 along with CR Nos. 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138 & 141 of 2007. 26.5.2008 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 1. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondents 2 and 3. CR 139 of 2007. Mr. Bimal Gupta, counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 3. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondents 5 and 6. CR 140 of 2007. Mr. Bimal Gupta, counsel for the petitioner(s). Ms. Ruma Kahshik, Addl.AG for respondents 15 and 16. None for the other respondents. Heard. No case is made out for interference by this Court except as indicated hereinafter. The petitions are dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submits that the executing Court has committed an error in calculating the amount due/area of the land. If this be so, it would be open to the petitioner(s) to move the executing Court for correction of any alleged error etc. He has taken me through the record to demonstrate that in fact execution has been instituted for land -2- which is not the subject matter of acquisition proceedings and there are discrepancies in the area etc. Surely, the executing Court should be aware of the fact that the decree can be executed only for that which it grants. In the circumstances, it would be open to the petitioner(s) to approach the executing Court to demonstrate and show that the land, for which the execution is sought, is not part of the acquisition proceedings or that there are discrepancies in the area, amount etc. as claimed. Till that time, the order of attachment shall remain, but no sale shall be ordered. With these observations, all petitions are disposed of. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. Records of the executing Court be sent back immediately. The executing Court is directed to proceed with expedition. May 26, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.