IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2010 ANTONIO ALMEIDA, THROUGH HIS LEGAL REP. BY FATIMA ALMEIDA AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, W.D. XXI (PHE), P.W.D. FATORDA AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 18th April, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 27th January, 2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Execution Application no.13/2006 in Land Acquisition Case No.115/1992. Against the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.115/1992 by District Judge, South Goa, Margao, the respondents herein preferred First Appeal No.176/2000 before this Court in which the Division Bench of this Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.45/- per square metre to Rs.66/- per square metre. Thereafter, the applicants herein filed Execution Application. In the Execution Application, the applicants claimed that an amount of Rs.26,72,788.24 was the amount due as on 6th February, 2006. The respondents contended before the Executing Court that the applicants herein were entitled to total amount of Rs.13,71,444 and not the amount claimed by the decree holder. The objection found favour with the Executing Court and by order dated 27th January, 2010, the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao disposed of the application holding that the applicants were entitled to only Rs.13,71,444/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have filed the present revision application. 3. When the revision application came up for hearing after notice to the respondents, by order dated 9th July, 2010, the learned Registrar (Judicial) was directed to calculate the amount due in terms of the judgment dated 23rd June, 2004 passed by this Court. The Registrar of this Court submitted the report alongwith the calculation. According to the Registrar, in terms of the award, the applicants were entitled to an amount of Rs.50,41,029/-. Considering the huge difference in the amount due to the applicants, by order dated 14th March, 2011 the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to calculate the amount afresh. Pursuant to the said order, the Registrar heard both the parties and submitted calculation according to which, the applicants are entitled to an amount of Rs.50,41,029/-. 4. According to Mr. Shirodkar, the applicants had not claimed the said amount even in the Execution Application and as such, the applicants are not entitled to the said amount. 5. According to Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Ghanashyam; (2009)8 SCC 412, the applicants are entitled to said amount and since the amount due to the applicants has to be worked out in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court, mere fact that the applicants have not claimed the said amount in the Execution application, would not disentitle the applicants from claiming the said amount. However, Mr. D'Costa submitted that the applicants be granted liberty to amend the Execution Application since the applicants are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.50,41,029/- in terms of the above referred judgment of the Apex Court. 6. I do not find any impediment in granting liberty to the applicants to amend the Execution Application since no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and the respondents would be given an opportunity of being heard before passing any order in the Execution Application filed by the applicants. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27th January, 2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Execution Application No.13/2006 is quashed and set aside. Liberty to the applicants to amend the Execution Application stating therein the amount due in terms of the award. Amendment to be carried out within a period of three weeks and a copy of the amended Execution Application be furnished to the respondents. After amendment is carried out, liberty to the respondents to file their say to the amended Execution Application. The learned Principal District Judge shall dispose of the Execution Application no.13/2006 after giving opportunity of being heard to both sides, in accordance with law. All the rival contentions are kept open and it is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival claims. 8. The Executing Court shall dispose of the Execution Application expeditiously and in any case, on or before 30th August, 2011. The parties to appear before the Executing Court on 9th June, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. 9. Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA