THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.3930 of 2010 ORDER: The lands owned by the petitioners were acquired by the Government for an irrigation project. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded, they sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, and it was taken up as, L.A.O.P.No.280 of 2000. Through order dated 18-04-2008, the trial Court enhanced the compensation for the land, structures, trees, etc. L.A.A.S.No.473 of 2008 was filed by the respondent against the said decree. Petitioners have also filed Appeal, seeking further enhancement and the same is numbered as, L.A.A.S.No.427 of 2008. Both the appeals are pending before this Court. The petitioners filed E.P.No.73 of 2008 for execution of the decree. When the same was not taken up for quite some time, they approached this Court by filing C.R.P.No.1682 of 2010. The C.R.P. was disposed of on 21- 04-2010, directing the Executing Court to decide the E.P., on merits, within a period of two months, in case there does not exist any order of stay. The Executing Court, in turn, dismissed the E.P., through order dated 27-07- 2010. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Appeals. The E.P was filed for execution of a decree, against which two appeals are pending before this Court. The record does not disclose that there exists an order of stay of execution of the decree. Obviously, for that reason, the petitioners filed the E.P. When it was not being proceeded with, they have approached this Court and accordingly direction was issued for disposal thereof. The E.P. was dismissed mainly on the ground that the property, that was sought to be attached, is not described properly. The petitioners do not have any specific answer for that. The property, which the petitioners wanted the Executing Court to attach; is an extent of about 8 acres of land, and the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer constructed a yard. The land is in as many as 10 different survey numbers. The value of the property is also not mentioned. Apart from the technicalities involved, the contention advanced by the respondent, that the enhancement was phenomenal, and even for non-existent trees, huge compensation was awarded; cannot be ignored. The land involved is hardly 10 acres, and the compensation was awarded for different kinds of trees, as well as the so-called amusing structures. The petitioners claimed under the decree, a sum of Rs.2,40,82,352/-. It is not out of place to mention that the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet has on its record, several matters, in which fictitious claims were noticed and orders on administrative side had to be passed by this Court, on several occasions. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. The petitioners can file the E.P. after the appeals, pending before this Court, are disposed of. Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies, after L.A.A.S.Nos.427 and 473 of 2008 are disposed of by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-08-2010. KO