JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. Heard both sides. 3. This revision application takes exception to the order passed by the District Judge, North Goa at Panaji, dated January 15, 2000 in Execution Application No. 5/98 in Land Acquisition Case No. 18/78 and in Land Acquisition Case No. 18/80. This Court, while issuing notice on the present petition on March 31, 2000, had made it clear that the matter will be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Inspite of notice, none appeared for respondent No. 7, whereas Mr. Lotlikar appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Rivonkar appears for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised only three points for consideration of this Court. He submits that the respondents No. 1 to 4 were entitled to enhanced amount to the extent of 50% only in respect of the subject land admeasuring 15,703 sq. metres. The second question raised is that the petitioners should not be fastened with dual liability in as much as the petitioner has already deposited the amount of compensation in respect of the suit land at the rate Rs. 2/- per sq. metre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is lastly contended that there is error in the computation of amount determined by the executing Court. 5. Briefly stated, the respondents No. 1 to 4 were admittedly tenants in respect of the suit land. It is their case that they have been subsequently declared as deemed purchasers by virtue of the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act; and, therefore, they have become deemed purchasers. However, while the tenancy proceedings were in progress, the Land Acquisition proceedings were commenced in respect of the suit land. The respondents No. 1 to 4 were given notice about the said proceedings and they resisted the said proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. Even the respondent No. 7 who is the original owner in respect of the suit land contested the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, which eventually culmiated in the Award dated March 30, 1978. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the suit land at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. metre. Even the respondent No. 7 who is the original owner in respect of the suit land contested the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, which eventually culmiated in the Award dated March 30, 1978. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the suit land at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. metre. Against the said Award, the respondent No. 7 carried the matter before the District Court by way of Reference under section 30 for apportionment of the compensation, being Land Acquisition Case No. 18/1978. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent No. 7 had claimed enhancement of the market price determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the other hand, respondents No. 1 to 4 who were tenants in respect of the suit land, not only asked for enhancement of the market price, but also made reference for apportionment of the compensation, which reference was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 18/1978. Both these references were heard and decided together by the District Judge by Award dated August 30, 1985. By the said Award, the District Court enhanced the market price to Rs. 7/- per sq. metre besides giving other benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act to the claimants. Insofar as apportionment proceedings are concerned, the District Court held that the respondent No. 1, to 4 were tenants only in respect of the land admeasuring 15,703 sq. meters; and accordingly ordered that they should be paid a sum of Rs. 52,094/- out of the compensation amount already deposited with the Government. In other words, the District Court concluded that the respondents No. 1 to 4 were tenants in respect of the land admeasuring 15703 sq. metres and were entitled to 50% of the compensation amount. 6. Against this Award, the respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred First Appeal before this Court, being First Appeal No. 158/1985. The said First Appeal was dismissed, with certain observations which would enure to the benefit of the respondents No. 1 to 4. It would be apposite to reproduce para 10 of the judgment and decree passed by this Court, which reads thus :- "10. Mr. Kakodkar lastly contended that by virtue of the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act, the appellant is a deemed purchaser in respect of the land in which he has interest, viz., to an area admeasuring 15, 703 sq. mtrs. Mr. Kakodkar lastly contended that by virtue of the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act, the appellant is a deemed purchaser in respect of the land in which he has interest, viz., to an area admeasuring 15, 703 sq. mtrs. He conceded that the Fifth Amendment to the Tenancy Act was struck down by the Judicial Commissioner's Court and that an appeal had been preferred in the Supreme Court against the said Judgment which is still pending. However, he submitted that the Tenancy Act was taken in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, for all purposes, the appellant is a deemed purchaser in respect of the aforesaid portion of the land. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the compensation as regards the said piece of land could not be apportioned between the Comunidade and him and was to be awarded exclusively to him. Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Comunidade, however, contended that although the appellant is to be held a deemed purchaser, nonetheless, he will have to pay a fair compensation to the Comunidade. The issue of the amount of the compensation and its computation is pending before the Supreme Court and in the circumstances, the learned Counsel contended that there is no reason for interference with the apportionment of the compensation made by the learned District Judge. We agree with Mr. Usgaonkar but with the rider that after the case is decided by the Supreme Court, the Comunidade should refund to the appellant the amount in excess of the deemed purchase price, if any." (emphasis supplied). 7. It is therefore obvious that the market price in respect of the suit land has been determined at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. metre. Besides this, the Court has accepted the claim of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 that they had become deemed purchasers by virtue of the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act, for the challenge to the Fifth Amendment has been negatived by the Apex Court. In view of this finding, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were naturally entitled for the entire compensation amount in respect of the land admeasuring 15703 sq. metres. In the circumstances, the respondents No. 1 to 4 took out execution application before the executing Court. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was joined as respondent/judgment debtor. In view of this finding, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were naturally entitled for the entire compensation amount in respect of the land admeasuring 15703 sq. metres. In the circumstances, the respondents No. 1 to 4 took out execution application before the executing Court. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was joined as respondent/judgment debtor. The petitioner raised objections before the executing Court which has been negatived and it is against the said decision that the present revision has been filed. As referred to above, only three questions have been raised. 8. Having regard to the undisputed facts, it will be seen that the respondents No. 1 to 4 have become absolute owners by virtue of the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act as back as 20th April, 1976, whereas the acquisition proceedings commenced on 2nd April, 1977. In the circumstances, both on the question of market price as well as entitlement of the market price, the respondents were justified in pursuing the matter right upto this Court. This Court has already concluded, in its decision dated August 7, 1987, on both the abovesaid aspects in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. In the circumstances, in so far as market value of the land is concerned, the said question stands concluded by the decision of this Court. Further, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the entitlement of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 would be only to the extent of 50% of the market price. This submission is clearly misplaced inasmuch as once the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have been held to have become absolute owners much before the land acquisition proceedings had commenced, there is no reason to deprive them of the compensation amount for the entire land as owners thereof instead of restricting to 50% only as contended by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had filed reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the amount and the same has been answered in favour of the said respondents right upto this Court. The said Award and decree has become final and cannot be allowed to be reopened in execution proceedings. It is not open for the executing Court to go behind the said decree. The said Award and decree has become final and cannot be allowed to be reopened in execution proceedings. It is not open for the executing Court to go behind the said decree. In the circumstances, the first submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be entitled only to 50% of the compensation amount is totally misplaced and ill-advised and the same is rejected. 9. With reference to the second point advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner should not be fastened with dual liability inasmuch as they have already deposited the compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. metre before the Court, there can be no doubt that the petitioner should not be made to pay twice towards the compensation amount if the petitioner has already deposited part of the compensation amount which was originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner will have to pay only the enhanced amount at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. metre. In other words, after deducting the original compensation amount already deposited in the District Court, the balance amount of the total compensation amount shall have to be deposited with the executing Court forthwith. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that the said amount will be deposited and the petitioner would take necessary steps to deposit the balance amount at the earliest. In the circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner of dual liability is not warranted. 11. Mr. Lotlikar however points out section 31 of the Act to contend that the respondent No. 7 should be directed to refund the amount which has been withdrawn by them out of the compensation amount deposited by the petitioner before the District Court. Reliance is placed on the third proviso to section 31(2) in this behalf. It would be open to the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to take out appropriate proceedings against the respondent No. 7 before the executing Court. Besides the said proviso, even the decree passed by this Court in first appeal clearly provides that the respondent No. 7 shall refund to the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 the amount in excess of the deemed purchase price, if any. In the circumstances, it will be open to the respondents Nos. Besides the said proviso, even the decree passed by this Court in first appeal clearly provides that the respondent No. 7 shall refund to the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 the amount in excess of the deemed purchase price, if any. In the circumstances, it will be open to the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to approach the executing Court and ask for appropriate relief in that behalf. Mr. Lotlikar points out that it is possible that the respondent No. 7 has not withdrawn the amount which was deposited by the petitioner before the District Court. In that case, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 may ask for appropriate relief from the executing Court and seek permission to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest, if any. 12. Insofar as the third point raised on behalf of the petitioner, that there is discrepancy in the computation done by the executing Court with reference to the schedule which at page 63, Mr. Lotlikar submits that even he has some submissions to make with regard to the correctness of the said computation done by the executing Court. Since the parties have to go back to the executing Court for necessary relief, this issue can be determined by the executing Court and appropriate directions can be passed in that behalf. The issue regarding computation is therefore left open. 13. In the circumstances, this revision application is partly allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. Rule is partly made absolute. In the event any application is filed by either party before the executing Court, the said Court may expedite the hearing of the proceedings and preferably decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Revision Application partly allowed. -----