KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THE learned counsel Sri Malimath for the petitioners, Sri Shevgoor for respondent-2 and Sri M. Prabhudev, H. C. G. P. for respondent-1 have submitted that the matters may be heard finally on merits and disposed of. Accordingly, arguments are heard and the revisions are disposed of. ( 2 ) THE decree-holders in Execution case Nos. 97, 101,91,95,103,93,92, 98,94,99,100 and 102 of 1980 have preferred these revisions against the orders dated 27-11-1986, dismissing the execution petitions. ( 3 ) THE decree-holders have sued out executions to recover money awarded by the Civil Judge on references made to it by the Land Acquisition Officer. Res- pcndent-2 City Municipal council, "bagalkot, made an application in all the cases under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure read with Section 151 CPC, to implead it in the execution contending that the area in question had been acquired for its benefit i. e. , for the purpose of forming a layout for the purpose of house sites and the Civil Judge had not issued any notice to it at all, and therefore the award was ineffective as against it and it cannot be executed against it. ( 4 ) THE Executing Court referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. , v. Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) by L. Rs. , aim. 1980 Supreme Court, 1118 and held that the words 'person interested' used in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition act would include a person for whose benefit or for whose purpose the land is acquired and therefore notice ought to have been issued to respondent 2 and that no notice was issued and hence, the decree was null and void. The executing court has held that the award as a whole was nuli, void and ineffective and so it dismissed the execution petitions. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel Sri Malimath submitted that he is not interested in recovering the money from the Municipal council at all and he would proceed only against the state which has acquired the property. The said Supreme Court decision was a case, which arose in a matter filed against the award itself. It did not consider the stage of execution petition at all. The said Supreme Court decision was a case, which arose in a matter filed against the award itself. It did not consider the stage of execution petition at all. When once the award has become final, the executing Court cannot go behind it and find out as to whether the award passed is proper or not. The only thing open to the executing Court is to find out whether the Court that passed the award had the jurisdiction or not. When once it is found that the Court that passed the award had the jurisdiction, the executing Court had no jurisdiction to say that the award is null and void or bad or ineffective. The function of the executing Court is not to sit in appeal and decide at all the propriety or otherwise or the legality or otherwise of the award itself. In an execution petition, the executing Court normally cannot go behind the decree. ( 6 ) THE Court of the Civil Judge that passed the awards, which are sought to be executed in these cases, had the jurisdiction to pass them. Therefore, the awards passed by the Civil Judge cannot be said to be bad, ineffective or ones passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, the executing Court was not justified in refusing to execute the decrees and dismissing the execution petitions. It ought to have seen that it is the Government that has acquired the property and so it was liabfe to pay the compensation to the decree-holders. The government cannot refuse to pay the amount awarded by way of compensation, because it was a par y to the references as well as to the execution petitions. The learned High Court government Pleader Sri Prabhudev submitted that the government has no objection to pay compensation. Therefore, when the government has no objection to pay the money, the order of the executing Court dismissing the execution petitions even against respondent-1 is bad at law. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel Sri Shevgoor for R. 2 submitted that as the property was acquired for its purpose, the government would recover money from it. It is a matter between the Municipality and the government. . . . . . . . ( 7 ) THE learned counsel Sri Shevgoor for R. 2 submitted that as the property was acquired for its purpose, the government would recover money from it. It is a matter between the Municipality and the government. . . . . . . . So far as respondent- 2 is concerned, the award sought to be executed is ineffective and it is not binding on it, as it was not a party to any of the proceedings. (Vide Land Acquisition officer v Chandrasekhara Gowda, I. L R. 1985 Karnataka. 3044 ). Further respondent-2 city Municipal Council was not initially made a party by the decree-holders. The Municipal Council itself came on record suo-motu. The executing court ought not to have allowed that impleadjng application at all, because no award was passed against it. Thus, the present contentions raised by respondent- 2 are not of any significance because, it is respondent-2 that itself has come on record suo-moto and it would not be a party within the meaning of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Vide the commentary of Sri Mulla on the Code of civil Procedure, 14 Edition, page 330 ). ( 8 ) THEREFORE, under these circumstances, the orders passed by the executing Court impugned in all these revisions are set aside in part and the revisions ate allowed in part. For the purpose of clarification it is ordered that the executing Court is directed to proceed with the executions against respondem-1 for recovery of the amount awarded. The execution petitions as against respondent-2 municipal Council are rightly dismissed by the executing Court. No costs in these revisions. ( 9 ) SRI Prabhudev, the learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within a fortnight from to-day. Petitions Partly Allowed. --- *** --- .