M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) ONCE again, this civil revision petition raises the point that is coming up before this Court as to whether it is open to the executing Court in a land acquisition case to question the correctness of an earlier order passed conferring benefits under section 23 (1-A ). In several of the land acquisition proceedings, the benefits under Section 23 (1-A) are either straightaway conferred or there have been instances where applications have been made to the Court pointing out that the claimants are entitled to additional benefits and the Court passes an order granting them. In those of the cases where payment is not forthcoming, the claimant is left with no option except to take out the execution proceedings. This is one such case. At the time when the execution proceedings are commenced, very often an objection is put forward by the representative of the State that the various dates do not appear to have been carefully scrutinised by the previous Court and that therefore, the matter should be reopened before directing the payment because there is every possibility that those benefits have been wrongly conferred. In some of the cases replies are filed or records are produced in support of this plea that having regard to the correct dates as emerge from the record that the Section 23 (1-A) benefits are not admissible and that therefore they should not be sanctioned. The executing Court is faced with a difficulty in so far as the correctness of the order which is under execution is being challenged and if a scrutiny of the material produced is done, it appears to the Court that there is ground to reopen the question or there is ground to refuse execution because certain material facts or dates were overlooked, whether the executing court can exercise such powers. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate submitted that the position in law is absolutely clear in so far as the decision of the supreme Court in Ittyavira Mathai v Varkey Varkey and another, is still good law is so far as it is a well-settled proposition that an executing Court cannot go behind a decree, it cannot re-examine it nor can it question its legality or validity. The principle which was originally enunciated in the decision in maqbul Ahmad and Others v Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and others, was reiterated by the Supreme Court and has been followed eversince. The decision proceeds on the footing that if there is any infirmity in the earlier orders that this must be rectified by the party against whom it is directed and if it is not done and the order becomes final that the executing Court cannot embark upon any examination of that order, that it must proceed on the footing that it is a valid and a binding order and execute it without questioning. The petitioner's learned advocate also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in state of Punjab and Others v Mohinder Singh Randhawa and another , wherein the Court was specifically dealing with a situation where the order directing payment of enhanced compensation was not challenged and a plea was taken up before the executing Court that the payment under Section 23 (1-A) was not admissible. The Supreme Court categorically held that this plea cannot be raised before the executing Court in the absence of any challenge to the earlier decree. This virtually concludes the position in law. ( 3 ) I need to observe here that judicial proceeding embody arule of finality which is sacrosanct. It is presumed that the representative of the State has produced requisite material and has been sufficiently vigilant in pointing out to the Court of the first instance all relevant material such as facts, dates, legal position etc. If despite this, the Court passes a wrong order or in those few cases where the matter may have gone by default for whatever reason, once the order has been passed there are scrutiny authorities in the department and at the Government level as also their legal representatives who are required to check the correctness of the order passed and if there is any error, to appeal against it and get it rectified. In cases where this does not happen and the order becomes final, it is virtually the end of the matter. The executing Court has no jurisdiction in law to reopen the proceeding to go behind a decree or virtually to pass review orders or appellate orders in respect of the earlier order that has come up for execution. In cases where this does not happen and the order becomes final, it is virtually the end of the matter. The executing Court has no jurisdiction in law to reopen the proceeding to go behind a decree or virtually to pass review orders or appellate orders in respect of the earlier order that has come up for execution. Even in those few cases of which this Court requires to take judicial notice, where unfair practices may have been resorted to at whichever level it is still presumed that the order passed will be scrutinised because there is a heavy responsibility on the Government and its departments and officers as far as the payment of public money is concerned, and once this is done, it is necessary that if the order is wrong that an appeal be filed and it be corrected. Where this procedure is not adopted, the State is estopped in law from seeking to raise any such plea before the executing Court and even if such a plea is raised the executing Court has no reason to entertain it and must dismiss it outright. It is in this background that the plea canvassed by the petitioner's learned Advocate requires to be upheld. The defence put forward on behalf of the state that there is public money involved and that the payment may result in unjust enrichment to the claimant and that therefore, irrespective of the stage at which it is done, the Court should always be willing to reconsider the matter is a totally untenable one for the reason that it offends the principles of finality and having regard to the well-settled case law, such a plea cannot be entertained. ( 4 ) IN this view of the matter, the civil revision petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. The executing Court is directed to forthwith give effect to the orders and to conclude the execution proceedings without any further delay. Civil revision petition allowed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .