Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 04.02.2005, passed by the Executing Court, dismissing the execution petition and directing the Petitioner to refund Rs. 15684/ - Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Executing Court has ignored the award, passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and failed to discern that the calculation sheet prepared by the Respondents does not contain calculations relating to the amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act. It is further argued that the amount envisaged by Section 23(1A) of the Act is payable to the Petitioner in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 (4) RCR 727. It is further submitted that calculations referred to by the trial Court are factually and legally incorrect.
(2.) COUNSEL for the State of Punjab, submits that as the Additional District Judge has examined the matter in detail and the Petitioner has calculated compensation by applying compound interest, the impugned order does not call for interference. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the calculation sheet prepared by the Respondents, the calculations referred to by the Petitioner in paragraph 5 of his petition and am prima -facie satisfied that the Executing Court has committed an error of jurisdiction while holding that the Petitioner has calculated the amount due by applying compound interest. It would be necessary to mention that the Executing Court has ignored that calculation submitted by the Respondents does not refer to the amount due under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is allowed, the order dated 04.02.2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, for adjudication afresh and in accordance with law.;