S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st February 2001 of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in E. P. No. 62 of 2000 in O. P. No. 2397 of 1980. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the decreeholder in whose favour an award was passed by the civil Court in O. P. No. 2397 of 1980 on 14th december 1988. The Execution Petition is filed by the petitioner/claimant under order XXI Rules 22,43 and 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure to attach and sell the schedule properties for the realization of the e. P. amount. According to the petitioner/ claimant he was paid the entire amount of compensation except the additional amount of 12% awarded under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the land Acquisition Act. That was resisted by the Respondent/special Deputy Collector, who contested the claim of the petitioner/ claimant on the ground that the petitioner/ claimant is not entitled for the additional market value provided under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act as the acquisition as well as the passing of the Award was prior to 30-4-1982. Thereafter the Executing Court went into the merits of the claim of the petitioner/claimant and after referring to various judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court decided that the petitioner is not entitled to the additional market value as provided under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act and accordingly dismissed the e. P. Questioning the said order, the claimant/petitioner is before this Court. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the executing Court has no power to go behind the decree passed by the reference Court. The lands of the petitioner were acquired and an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter on a reference the Civil Court passed its Award in the year 1988. As per the award passed by the Civil Court the petitioner is entitled for the additional market value as provided under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act and the said Award passed by the Civil Court has become final as there was no appeal or other proceedings. It is stated that when the petitioner/claimant sought to execute the award, the executing court went into the merits of the claim and dismissed the E. P. The said action of the executing Court is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is stated that when the petitioner/claimant sought to execute the award, the executing court went into the merits of the claim and dismissed the E. P. The said action of the executing Court is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel the executing Court has no power to go behind the award/decree passed by the reference Court. Therefore, the impugned order of the executing Court is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme court in Bhawarlal Bhandari vs. Universal heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises1 in support of his contention that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The learned Counsel also contended that as on the date when the Award was passed by the Civil Court the position as declared by the Apex Court was in terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of union of India and others vs. Zora Singh etc. etc. 2. The learned Counsel also contended that even if there is subsequent change in view of the latter judgment of the Supreme court, unless the Award passed by the Civil court is modified, the Executing Court has no power to go into the merits of the said award. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the order of the executing Court. The learned Counsel contended that on merits as the acquisition as well as passing of the award by the collector was before 30-4-1982, the petitioner is not entitled to claim additional market value under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act. Therefore, the executing Court is well within its jurisdiction to deny the claim. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Maharau Srawan hatkar and also the decision of the supreme Court in the case of K. S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that payment of additional amounts under sub- section (1-A) of Sec. 23 of the Land acquisition Act is only in cases covered by clauses (a) and (b) of Sec. 30 of the amendment Act. ( 6 ) HEARD both sides and considered the material on record. ( 6 ) HEARD both sides and considered the material on record. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the reference court in O. P. No. 2397 of 1980 dated 14th december 1988 passed an award. Paragraph 3 of the Award specifically provides for payment of the additional market value, which is as under:-"that the claimant is entitled to an additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% on the market value fixed by this Court from the date of publication of the Notification under sec. 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, namely from 28-10-1976 to 10-11-1978 (i. e. , date of Award ). " ( 8 ) FROM the above it is clear that the reference Court has awarded additional market value, which is contemplated under sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act. When the petitioner filed the execution petition to execute the said award and decree, the executing Court went into the merits of the claim whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled for the additional market value under Sec. 23 (l-A) and decided that as the claimant is not entitled for the same, he is not entitled to execute the Award/decree. The said view of the executing Court is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. As long as the Award/ decree was not modified, altered or amended the executing Court has no power to go behind the decree unless the said decree is either a nullity, on the ground that it was passed against a dead person or the court that passed the decree had inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is not the case of the executing Court or the respondents that the award/decree passed was a nullity on any of the above grounds. The only contention was that as the award was passed much before 30-4-1982, the claimant is not entitled for additional market value as provided under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act. It is not for the executing Court to go into that aspect at the time of execution. If this process is allowed there is no finality to the matters and it will go on changing from time to time. Similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court bhawarlal Bhandari (supra ). The Apex court after referring to its earlier judgments held that the executing Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree except in the case where a decree is a nullity. Similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court bhawarlal Bhandari (supra ). The Apex court after referring to its earlier judgments held that the executing Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree except in the case where a decree is a nullity. The apex Court has extracted the observations of the said Court made in the case of vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul rehman and others. The appropriate observations, as extracted by the Apex court are as under- "a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed on objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. Again, when the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the fact of the record; where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. In Jnanendra mohan Bhaduri and another vs. Rabindra nath Chakravarti the Judicial committee held that where a decree was passed upon an award made under the provisions of the Indian arbitration Act, 1899, an objection in the course of the execution proceedings that the decree was made without jurisdiction, since under the indian Arbitration Act, 1899, there is no provision for making a decree upoh an award, was competent. That was a case in which the decree was on the face of the record without jurisdiction. " ( 9 ) THE Apex Court further observed that"even if a decree was passed beyond the period of limitation, it would be an error of law or at the highest a wrong decision which can be corrected in appellate proceeding and not by the executing Court, which was bound by such decree". ( 10 ) FROM the above decision it is clear that the executing Court can go into the executability of the decree only under two circumstances - where a decree is nullity in case where it is passed against a dead person or in case the Court that passed the decree has no inherent jurisdiction. But in none of other circumstances, it is not open to the executing Court to go into the executability of the decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the law as on the date when the award was passed, was that the claimant is entitled for additional market value under Sec. 23 (1-A), when the reference was pending before the civil Court and an award was passed subsequent to the amendment Act came into force i. e. , after 24th September 1984. Admittedly the award was passed by the reference Court in the present case on 14th december 1988, long after the amendment act came into force. In view of the above, there is no scope for the executing Court either to go into the merits whether the claimant is entitled for additional market value under Sec. 23 (l-A) or not. Even if there is a change in the legal position by virtue of a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court, it is not for the executing Court to correct the decree and it is only an appellate Court or the Court, which passed the decree, may pass appropriate orders in appropriate proceedings. ( 11 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the executing Court has erred in dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner/ claimant. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the execution petition is restored to file of the Principal Senior Civil judge, Kurnool with a direction to proceed with the E. P. ( 12 ) THE C. R. P. is allowed accordingly. No costs.