1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.R No. 104 of 2002. Date of decision: 24.4.2009 Rajender Kumar …….Petitioners Vs. State of H.P. & others ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Desh Raj Sood, vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) This revision has been directed against the order dated 14.1.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Execution Petition No.21 of 2001. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in brief is that he and others had filed execution petition for realization of the amount awarded by the learned District Judge in Ref. Petition No. 68-S/4 of 90 decided on 12.7.1993. The stand of the petitioner was that total amount due on the basis of award upto 31.8.1994 was Rs.2,30,164/- along with interest and after adjusting the amount deposited in the Court the balance amount payable was Rs.88,848 as on 30.4.2001 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 2 On the contrary according to respondents No.1 and 2, the total amount payable was Rs.71,761/- as per Annexure-A filed with reply. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 before learned District Judge had filed Annexure-A showing net amount payable Rs.71,761/- . The learned District Judge has noticed the stand of respondents No.1 and 2 in paragraph 5 of the impugned order and ultimately held that amount due to the claimants was Rs.71,761/-. 4. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions received from Karam Singh Naib Tehsildar, in the office of Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, Shimla at Solan, who is present in the court has stated that in fact calculation submitted by respondents No.1 and 2 before learned District Judge showing payable amount of Rs.71,761/- is not correct. This amount was payable in Land Ref. Petition No.24-NS/4/94/92 and not in the present case. This being the position the very basis of the impugned order goes. In these circumstances, the revision is allowed, order dated 14.1.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Execution Petition No.21 of 2001 is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Solan with a direction to decide the execution petition afresh after giving opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. The appearing parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan on 15.5.2009, record of the Court below be sent immediately. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge April 24, 2009 (sks)