IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2008 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER W.D. XXI (PHE) MARGAO AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus ANTONIO ALMEIDA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR FATIMA ALMEIDA AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the petitioners. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 29th September, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioners challenge the order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Execution Application No.13/2006 by which the Execution application has been rejected. 3. The land of the respondents was acquired by the State of Goa vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22.01.1987. The possession of the land of the respondents was taken on 30.09.1985 i.e. prior to issuance of the section 4 Notification. The Reference Court by judgment and award dated 04.12.1999 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.115/1992 partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation. The Reference court held that the respondents were entitled to 12% interest under section 23 (1) (A) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession i.e. 30.09.1985 till the date of the award. The petitioners preferred First Appeal No.176/2000 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court. In Execution Application filed by the respondents, the petitioners/judgment debtors contended that the respondents were not entitled to any amount under section 23 (1) (A) of the Act prior to the issuance of the Notification under section 4 of the Act. The Executing Court by the impugned order has rejected the objection taken by the petitioners on the ground that allowing the objection would amount to the Execution Court going beyond the award passed by the Reference Court, which has been confirmed by the High Court. 4. Mr. Rivonkar submitted that under the Land Acquisition Act, the person whose land is acquired is not entitled to compensation under section 23 (1) (A) of the Act for the period prior to issuance of the Notification under section 4 of the Act and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to any amount from 30.09.1985 till 22.01.1987. He submitted that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 5. Having heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioners and having perused the records, I do not find any merit in the petition. It is pertinent to note that the award passed by the Reference Court granting compensation under section 23 (1) (A) of the Act from the date of taking possession has been confirmed by this Court in the appeal. Therefore, the Executing Court was legally justified in rejecting the objection taken by the respondents and holding that in the event the objection is allowed, the same would amount to the Execution Court going beyond the decree/award. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.