Judgment 1. This is an execution second appeal filed by Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana against the order of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dated 16-7-1996 affirming that of Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana dated 31-1-1994 where he had dismissed its application dated 24-1-1994 and had refused to hold auction sale dated 26-4-1993 held in favour of Rajender Singh etc. auction purchasers as void and nullity and ordered the sale to be made absolute. 2. Facts :- Balraj Singh and Sukhdev Singh sons of Teja Singh obtained an award dated 7-6-1986 against Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (judgment debtors). On the basis of that award, they filed execution against the judgment debtors for payment of a sum of Rs. 12,72,243.85 to them. In response to the warrant of attachment, the judgment debtors appeared through Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate. Warrant of attachment was issued by the executing Court on 16-5-1992 which was executed on 26-5-1992 and land of the JD was attached. On 24-8-1992, decree holder move application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC for issuance of proclamation of sale by public auction. No reply was filed by the judgment debtors to that application. Rather, the judgment debtors counsel absented on 23-1-1993 and judgment debtors were proceeded ex parte. Warrant of sale was issued on 22-2-1993. On 26-4-1993 property was put to sale by public auction. Out of total and attached, land measuring 9 kanal was put to auction for Rs. 13,10,000.00. Rajinder Singh etc. auction purchasers deposited 1/4th of the auction money amounting to Rs. 3,27,500.00 = 1/4 of Rs. 13,10,000.00 with the official who conducted the auction sale at the spot. That amount of Rs. 3,27,500.00 was deposed in the bank through treasury challan dated 27-4-1993. Later on, purchasers deposited the balance amount of Rs. 9,82,500.00 in the bank vide treasury challan dated 11-5-1993. On 7-8-1993, Judgment debtors filed objections to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC. Decree holders filed reply to the said objections. Auction purchasers also filed reply to the said objections. On 4-9-1993, the judgment debtors moved application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, C.P.C. for setting aside sale dated 26-4-1993 and also deposited Rs. On 7-8-1993, Judgment debtors filed objections to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC. Decree holders filed reply to the said objections. Auction purchasers also filed reply to the said objections. On 4-9-1993, the judgment debtors moved application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, C.P.C. for setting aside sale dated 26-4-1993 and also deposited Rs. 65,500.00 through cheque No. 456783 dated 25-8-1993, towards 5% of the purchase money drawn on Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, judgment debtors further deposited another sum of Rs.8,69,979.66 through another cheque dated 25-8-1993 as the amount for the satisfaction of the decree. An amount of Rs. 6,26,039.51p was already paid to the decree holder after the filing of the present execution vide two cheques dated 20-4-1987. Another sum of Rs. 5,58,114.66p was got deposited through the attachment of Bank account in these execution proceedings. As such the entire decretal amount stood paid. Reply to the said application was filed by the decree holders as well as by the auction purchasers. On 22-9-93. Judgment debtors moved application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning limitation for filing application under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC which was to be moved within 60 days from the date of sale as also the limitation for deposit of the amount which was required to be deposited within 30 days. Reply to the said application was also filed by the auction purchasers and decree holders. Finally the judgment debtors moved application dated 24-1-1994 before the executing Court for holding the sale dated 26-4-1993 as void and nullity praying further that sale be not confirmed. Application was contested by the decree holders and the auction purchasers. They put in reply. Executing Court dismissed application of the judgment debtors. While dismissing the application of the JD for setting aside the sale, learned executing Court observed as follows:- "Order 21, Rule 92, CPC provides that where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. In view of the clear cut provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, CPC as referred to above. The sale in question is confirmed and the same has become absolute. The sale certificate be issued on the application of the auction purchasers under rules." 3. In view of the clear cut provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, CPC as referred to above. The sale in question is confirmed and the same has become absolute. The sale certificate be issued on the application of the auction purchasers under rules." 3. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana went in appeal against this order dated 31-1-1994 of Senior Subordinate Judge (Executing Court), Ludhiana. Vide order dated 16-7-1996. Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, judgment debtor (Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana) has come up in further appeal to this Court namely ESA No. 2194 of 1996. 4. Land measuring 34 kanal 19 marla situated in village Heibowal Khurd belonging to Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was attached. In execution of this decree, the decree holders made application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC whereby they prayed that notice for setting terms of proclamation of sale of the property attached be given to the judgment debtors for 14-11-1992. On 14-11-1992 Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate appeared for the judgment debtors. He did not file reply to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC, instead, he sought adjournment for putting in reply to that application. On 5-12-1992, he did not put in reply to that application, instead he asked for adjournment. On 2-1-1993 also he did not put in reply to the said application and asked for adjournment. On 23-1-1993, Shri A.K. Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the decree holders was present. None appeared for the judgment debtors. (It may be mentioned here that earlier the judgment debtors were represented by Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate). On 23-1-1993, judgment debtors were proceeded against ex parte. Warrant of sale was ordered to be issued as per the following schedule : 1. Court house 23-2-1993 2. Munadi 26-3-1993 3. Sale 26-4-1993 4. Report 30-4-1993 @@@ 5. On 30-4-1993, sale warrant was not received back. It was ordered to be waited for 15-5-1993. As reported by the execution clerk, sale had been effected. On 15-3-1993, case was adjourned to 5-6-1993 for filing objections. On 4-9-1993. Judgment debtors moved application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, CPC for setting aside sale dated 26-4-1993. It was alleged in this application that the auction held for the property was totally illegal and invalid as suffering from irregularities and illegalities in conducting the sale. On 15-3-1993, case was adjourned to 5-6-1993 for filing objections. On 4-9-1993. Judgment debtors moved application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, CPC for setting aside sale dated 26-4-1993. It was alleged in this application that the auction held for the property was totally illegal and invalid as suffering from irregularities and illegalities in conducting the sale. Even with regard to the attachment of the property and the maintainability of the execution, the objections are still pending and are yet to be decreed by the Court. Without the disposal of the said objections, it was not permissible to hold the auction and the sale of the property of the judgment debtors. Judgment debtors, without prejudice to their rights, submitted and deposited an amount of Rs. 65,500.00 vide cheque No. 456783 dated 25-8-1993 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana towards 5% of the purchase money. Amount of Rs. 8, 69,979.97p through cheque No. 456762 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana as payment to the decree holder was deposited and an amount of Rs. 6,26,039.51p had already been paid to the decree holder through two cheques after the filing of the present execution application. Another amount of Rs. 5,58,174.66p was got deposited through attachment of the Bank account in these execution proceedings. As such entire decretal amount to which the claimant could be entitled, stood paid. 6. Objections to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC was filed by the judgment debtors on 7-8-1993 urging that the execution was not at all maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. Claim of the decree holders was not at all enforceable against the objector Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. Liability under the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to pay the enhanced compensation is that of the Land Acquisition Collector. Claim made by the DHs in the execution application was highly excessive and wrongly calculated. Decree holders had already received Rs. 6,26,031.51 vide cheque Nos. 546956 and 546957 dated 30-4-1987. Reply to these objections was filed by the decree holders urging that these objections are not maintainable as property belonging to the judgment debtor had already been auctioned on 26-4-1993 and the auction purchasers had deposited the amount. Decree holders had already received Rs. 6,26,031.51 vide cheque Nos. 546956 and 546957 dated 30-4-1987. Reply to these objections was filed by the decree holders urging that these objections are not maintainable as property belonging to the judgment debtor had already been auctioned on 26-4-1993 and the auction purchasers had deposited the amount. No objections regarding the auction made under the orders of the Court were filed within the time prescribed, as such, the auction had become absolute. It was denied that the execution petition was not maintainable before Senior Subordinate Judge. Senior Subordinate Judge had been entrusted with the powers under the Punjab Courts Act for execution of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Liability under the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to pay enhanced compensation was that of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana as award was passed in favour of the decree holders and against the judgment-debtors jointly and severally. Both the judgment debtors are liable to pay the amount of the award. No objections were filed by the judgment debtors against the attachment of the properties belonging to the judgment debtors under the relevant provisions of law. After attachment, notice under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC was served on the Judgment debtors. Judgment debtors had been seeking time to file reply to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC. Thereafter, Judgment debtors intentionally and wilfully absented from the Court and the Court ordered the auction of the attached property. Auction was held on 26-4-1993 and the report was received by the Court. It was too late for the Judgment debtors to turn round and claim otherwise. Judgment debtor was estopped by its act and conduct from raising any objection which was available to him before the auction of the property. Executing Court was bound to execute the award as it was. It was denied that the claim made by the JD was highly excessive and wrongly calculated. Amount alleged to have been received by DHs vide cheque Nos. 546956 and 546957 dated 30-4-1987 had already been adjusted and DHs have been claimed only the amount due as on the date of this execution i.e. 18-1-1992. 7. On 4-9-1993, Judgment debtors moved application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, CPC for setting aside sale dated 26-4-1993 and also deposited Rs. 546956 and 546957 dated 30-4-1987 had already been adjusted and DHs have been claimed only the amount due as on the date of this execution i.e. 18-1-1992. 7. On 4-9-1993, Judgment debtors moved application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, CPC for setting aside sale dated 26-4-1993 and also deposited Rs. 65,500.00 through cheque dated 25-8-1993 towards 5% of the purchase money. Judgment debtors further deposited another sum of Rs. 8,69,979.66 through another cheque dated 25-6-1993 as amount for the satisfaction of the decree. It was urged in application dated 4-9-1993 by the Judgment debtors for the setting aside of the sale that the auction held for the property was totally illegal and invalid as suffering from irregularities and illegalities in conducting the auction. Even with regard to the attachment of the property in question and the maintainability of the execution, the objections were still pending and were to be decided by the Court. Before disposal of the said objections of the JD, it was not permissible to hold the auction and the sale of the property of Judgment debtors. Along with this application, the Judgment debtors deposited an amount of Rs. 65,500.00 vide cheque No. 456783 dated 25-8-1993 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana. It was also urged that an amount of Rs. 6,26,039.51 had already been paid to the decree holder after the filing of the present execution vide cheque Nos. 456956 and 546957 dated 20-4-1987. Judgment debtors deposited Rs. 8,69,696.31 vide cheque No. 456782 along with another cheque of Rs. 95,000.00 bearing No. 456783 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana which included Rs. 65,500.00 as 5% of the auction and Rs. 29,500.00 as 5% of the auction for the other case titled Bhupinder Singh V/s. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana without prejudice to the rights of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Court accepted this deposit at the risk of the judgment debtors and without prejudice to the rights of the DH and the auction purchasers. Another sum of Rs. 5,58,174.66 was got deposited through attachment of the bank account in these execution proceedings, as such the entire decretal amount to which the claimant could be entitled, stood paid. 8. Auction purchasers put in reply resisting these objections. It was urged that this application was hopelessly barred by time. Another sum of Rs. 5,58,174.66 was got deposited through attachment of the bank account in these execution proceedings, as such the entire decretal amount to which the claimant could be entitled, stood paid. 8. Auction purchasers put in reply resisting these objections. It was urged that this application was hopelessly barred by time. Sale was conducted on 26-4-1993 and this application was moved on 4-9-1993, as such the application was not maintainable. It was denied that the Judgment debtors deposited a sum of Rs. 65,500.00, Rs. 8,69,979.66 for payment to the decree holder and Rs. 6,26,039.51p and Rs. 5,58,174.66 for payment to the decree holder after filing of the execution application. It was denied that the entire decretal amount stood paid to the decree holder after attachment and auction of the property in favour of the auction purchases. Auction purchasers have already parted with huge amount for the purchase of the property in dispute and the entire amount has been deposited in the Court . Judgment debtors have already been proceeded against ex parte. Judgment debtors have no locus standi to contest the execution application or to contest the proceedings of attachment and sale of the property without getting the ex parte proceedings set aside. Objections filed earlier have no merit and have no effect on the confirmation of the auction in favour of the auction purchasers. Auction purchaser will suffer irreparable loss and injury in case this false and frivolous application is taken into consideration and the sale conducted in favour of the auction purchasers is not confirmed. DHs also opposed this application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, CPC dated 4-9-1993 filed by the Judgment debtors by putting in reply. It was urged that the auction was conducted on 26-4-1993 and objections, if any, could be filed within 60 days thereof. As such application was liable to be dismissed. It was too late for the Judgment debtors to make the offer as alleged. Auction purchasers deposited the entire sale consideration within time. It was denied that the auction of the property attached was illegal and invalid suffering from irregularities and illegalities in conducting the auction. No objection to attachment of the property was pending as on 26-4-1993 when auction was conducted . There was no stay to the auction of the property. Auction purchasers deposited the entire sale consideration within time. It was denied that the auction of the property attached was illegal and invalid suffering from irregularities and illegalities in conducting the auction. No objection to attachment of the property was pending as on 26-4-1993 when auction was conducted . There was no stay to the auction of the property. Objections were filed on 7-8-1993 much after the auction of the property and they are not maintainable. No amount was paid to the Judgment debtors on 21-9-1992 and 15-6-1992. It was denied that the entire decretal amount to which the decree holder was entitled stood paid to the decree holders. Application was frivolous filed with a view to delay the payment of the awarded amount to the decree holder. 9. Judgment debtors filed application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in the filing of the application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, CPC for setting aside sale. In this application, the Judgment debtors alleged that the property was sold in auction conducted on 26-4-1993. The said, auction was illegal and irregular, as such the same was liable to be set aside. To get the auction set aside, the judgment debtors were to file an application. They were also required to make the deposit under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC without prejudice to their rights to challenge the sale on merits and for that purpose, they sought the advice of their counsel Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate. They were advised that there was no period of limitation if the Judgment debtors were to make the deposit and to file the application under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC. Under bona fide belief and acting on the said advice, the Judgment debtors made the said deposit on 4-9-1993 and also filed application. Judgment debtors learnt afterwards that the deposit under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC was to be made within 30 days from the date of sale and the application under Order 21, Rule 89 , CPC was to be made within 60 days for the date of sale. As such, the present application for condonation of delay was filed by the Judgment debtors under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Delay in making the deposit and filing the application was not intentional or wilful but due to wrong advice of the counsel. As such, the present application for condonation of delay was filed by the Judgment debtors under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Delay in making the deposit and filing the application was not intentional or wilful but due to wrong advice of the counsel. Delay deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. Even otherwise, the sale is not legal and regular. Property which was ordered for attachment and sale was of different property. The warrant of attachment did not even specify the property sought to be attached. If delay was not condoned, Judgment debtors will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Application under Order 21, Rule 89 read with Sec. 151, CPC was in substance also one under Order 21, Rule 90 and 91, CPC. Reply to the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the Judgment debtors was filed by the decree holder as well as by the auction purchasers contesting the maintainability of application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and also its merits. 10. Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 31-1-1994 dismissed the application filed under Order 21, Rule 89, read with Sec. 151, CPC by the Judgment debtors for the setting aside of the sale dated 26-4-1993 and ordered the confirmation of the sale vide order dated 31-1-1994. Judgment debtors went in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 16-7-1996. Still not satisfied, Judgment debtors (Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana ) has come up in further appeal to this Court. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as this execution was filed 2 years after the award, notice should have been given to the Judgment debtors of this execution so that Judgment debtors could make payment. Attachment could not have been issued straightway. It was submitted that the Judgment debtors were not given any notice of the filing of the execution application and warrant of attachment was issued straightway which is against the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22, CPC. Order 21, Rule 22 , CPC says that :- 22. Attachment could not have been issued straightway. It was submitted that the Judgment debtors were not given any notice of the filing of the execution application and warrant of attachment was issued straightway which is against the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22, CPC. Order 21, Rule 22 , CPC says that :- 22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases - (1) Where an application for execution is made - (a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or (b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of Sec. 44-A, or (c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent. The Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed why the decree should not be executed against him. Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within two years from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment debtor, if upon a previous application for execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him. (2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice. 12. No notice was required to be given to the Judgment debtors as it was a second execution application filed by the decree holders. Previous execution application was dismissed as partly satisfied. Account of the JD was attached as is clear from order dated 4-4-1992 (in the other execution application) and direction was issued for 29-4-1992 for sending the amount to the court. Order dated 29-4-92 shows that part payment was received. Warrant of attachment was not received. Previous execution application was dismissed as partly satisfied. Account of the JD was attached as is clear from order dated 4-4-1992 (in the other execution application) and direction was issued for 29-4-1992 for sending the amount to the court. Order dated 29-4-92 shows that part payment was received. Warrant of attachment was not received. On 6-6-92, warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued again for 6-6-1992 on payment of process fee. Warrant of attachment was ordered to be awaited for 17-7-1992. Order dated 17-7-1992 shows that the land of the judgment debtors was attached as reported by the execution Court. Application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC was ordered to be filed and notice of that application was ordered to be issued to the Judgment debtors for 24-8-1992. Only a sum of Rs. 4,61,029.70 was sought by the decree holder through this execution (other execution petition) by attachment and sale of the property of the Judgment debtors , by arrest and detention of the officers of the Judgment debtors in civil prison or any other mode as prescribed under law. It was 256 Acre Scheme in which land was acquired. So far as the decree holder was concerned, only land measuring 9462 sq. yards was acquired in this scheme known as 256 Acre Scheme of Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. Amount claimed by the decree holder was not a big amount. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana is a public body. Property vesting in the Ludhiana Improvement Trust , Ludhiana belongs to the public at large. 13. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22, CPC may not be enjoining the Court to issue notice to the Judgment debtors (Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana) of this execution but the interest of justice required as Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was a public body in which property belonging to the public at large vests that notice should have been issued to it in view of the provisions of Sec. 151, CPC which authorises the Court to make any order as is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court provided the passing of such an order is not prohibited by any other provision of law. It was submitted that when account of the Judgment debtors was attached and part payment was collected, rest of the amount could also be collected by attaching other heads of the account of the Judgment debtors . Application under Order 21, Rule 66 was filed by the decree holders on 24-8-1992. Notice of this application was ordered to be issued to the Judgment debtors for 14-11-1992. On 14-11-1992, Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate for the Judgment debtors - Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana appeared before the Court. He did not file any reply to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC and sought time to file reply. On 5-12-1992, also he did not file reply to that application and asked for adjournment. On 2-1-1993 also he did not file any reply. On 2-1-1993 he did not file reply and asked for adjournment. Application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC was posted to 23-1-1993. On 23-1-1993, only counsel for decree holders appeared. None appeared for the judgment debtors and Judgment debtors were proceeded against ex parte and the property was ordered to be put to sale. If on 23-1-1993, the counsel for the Judgment debtors did not appear and allowed the Judgment debtors to be proceeded ex parte, Court should not have proceeded ex parte against the Judgment debtors, instead the Court should have issued notice calling upon Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman to appear before it and file reply to the application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC particularly when the Judgment debtors had already put in objections on 27-8-1992 (in the other execution) where through the Judgment debtors had urged that the execution petition be dismissed with costs as no benefit could be claimed by the decree holders of Sec. 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, in view of the law laid down in Union of India V/s. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, AIR 1990 SC 981 that benefit of Sec. 23(1)(A) of the Amended Land Acquisition Act, 1984 are not application to cases in which award of the Land Acquisition Collector has been passed before 30-4-1982. As the petitioner had claimed benefit of Sec. 23(1)(A) in this execution petition to which he is not entitled, this execution petition is liable to be dismissed and also that the claim of the petitioner was highly excessive and wrong. Petitioner was only entitled to Rs. As the petitioner had claimed benefit of Sec. 23(1)(A) in this execution petition to which he is not entitled, this execution petition is liable to be dismissed and also that the claim of the petitioner was highly excessive and wrong. Petitioner was only entitled to Rs. 66,700.00 towards enhanced compensation as determined in accordance with the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The executing Court should have disposed of these objections before dealing with application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC filed by the decree holder. Executing Court did not deal with these objections at all and proceeded to auction the property of the Judgment debtors. For a small amount, land measuring 34 kanal 9 marla was got attached situated in village Halboal Khurd, Tehsil and District Ludhiana belonging to Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. To application under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC also, Judgment debtors showed resistance saying that the objection petition field by the Judgment debtors against the execution is still pending and has not been disposed of , as such attachment of Judgment debtors assets is not permissible and the same is liable to discharge. It was also stated that the DH appeared to have misled the court by concealing the pendency of the objection petition. Still the executing Court did not consider the objections of the Judgment debtors and proceeded to auction the property. It was not the award of the Land Acquisition Collector which was being executed. It was the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal which was being executed which allowed some enhancement. So far as the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is concerned that was since paid. It appears that Judgment debtors were not recalcitrant like any other JD. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest on solatium was not payable and the decree holder was claiming interest on solatium. It was held in Yadavrao P. Pathade (dead) by LRs V/s. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 570 that interest on solatium is not payable. Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act does not comprehend payment of interest on solatium when it expressly mentions payment of interest on compensation under Sec. 28 referable to Sec. 23(1) of the Act. Thus the High Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act does not comprehend payment of interest on solatium when it expressly mentions payment of interest on compensation under Sec. 28 referable to Sec. 23(1) of the Act. Thus the High Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Under Sec. 28 the claimants will be entitled to the interest on enhanced compensation from the date of the award of the Court under Sec. 26 and on appeal under Sec. 54 on the respective compensation, if enhanced, till date of deposit in the Court. Therefore , the State is required to only deposit the balance of interest on the enhanced compensation till date of deposit into the Court. 14. In Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur V/s. Gokul Narain (dead) by LRs (1996) 4 SCC 178 it was held that payment of additional amount is independent of the compensation determined for the value of the land. They are not part of the component of the compensation for value of the acquired land. They are in addition to and independent of the component of the compensation under Sec. 23(1) of Central LA Act or Sec. 52 of the Act. The payment of solatium, interest and additional amount under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1)(A) is in addition to the payment of the compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act under which the property came to be acquired. Admittedly, the Act does not provide for payment of solatium and additional benefits except interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession. The Amendment Act 88 of 1984 would be applicable prospectively from 1-8-1987 to the land acquired thereafter. Act 68 of 1984 would be applicable under Sec. 60-A to the pending cases as on 1-8-1987 to determine compensation. The question then is; whether objections can be raised in execution. The Amendment Act 88 of 1984 has no application to the lands acquired under the Act. Only w.e.f. 1-8-1987 was it made applicable only to the pending proceedings. It would, therefore, be clear that the order awarding additional benefits is clearly without jurisdiction and thereby it is a nullity. Its nullity can be assailed at any stage including at the execution or in a collateral proceedings since it strikes at the very jurisdiction and authority of the Court. It would, therefore, be clear that the order awarding additional benefits is clearly without jurisdiction and thereby it is a nullity. Its nullity can be assailed at any stage including at the execution or in a collateral proceedings since it strikes at the very jurisdiction and authority of the Court. In the instant case the finding of the Courts below that the appellant is not entitled to raise objection in the execution , is wrong in law. It should be considered in execution only under Sec. 47, CPC and not by a separate suit. 15. In this case, thus, it was the duty of the Court to find out whether the decree holder was entitled to the amount which was being claimed ; whether interest on solatium was claimable particularly when the Judgment debtors had stoutly refuted the claim of the decree holder to the amount claimed relying upon Union of India V/s. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, AIR 1990 SC 981. 16. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no notice was given to the JD regarding the intended sale. If notice had been given to the Judgment debtors regarding the intended sale, the Judgment debtors could save the property from being put to sale and deposited the amount. 17. It was held in State of Kerala V/s. Paily Mani 2000 (8) JT SC 316 that in view of the decision in K.S. Paripoornan V/s. State of Kerala 1994 (6) JT 182 the benefit of Sec. 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 granted to the respondent-claimants cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the award of the Collector was passed on 5/04/1980 and from such award even though reference before the Court might have been disposed of later on. Benefit of Sec. 23(1)(A) of the Act would not be available as held in the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 18. It was held in M/s. Farid Paper Mills (P) Ltd. V/s. Punjab Financial Corporation (1994 (3) PLR 66 that if notice of intended sale is not given to the judgment debtor sale has to be set aside. Executing Court could under certain circumstances entertain the objections filed even after the sale had been confirmed. In Sarwan Singh V/s. Man Singh (1939) 42 PLR 533. Executing Court could under certain circumstances entertain the objections filed even after the sale had been confirmed. In Sarwan Singh V/s. Man Singh (1939) 42 PLR 533. It was held by the Lahore Court that the sale was liable to be challenged even after confirmation in the event that the notice of auction sale had not been given to the judgment debtor. Notice to the intended sale as envisaged under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC had not been given to the Judgment debtors . Provisions of Order 21, Rule 66 CPC are based on the principle that no order detrimental to a party can be passed unless he be heard. 19. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rafiq V/s. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400 that where an appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of in the absence of his counsel as also his application for recall of order of dismissal so rejected by the High Court, the Supreme Court on appeal set aside both the orders of dismissal on ground that a party who, as per the present adversary legal system, has selected his advocate, briefed him and paid his fee can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such a innocent party who has done everything in his power and expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his counsel. Hon ble Supreme Court directed the appeal to be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. 20. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no notice of attachment of the land was given to the Judgment debtors . It was held that in this case there was no proclamation of the factum of attachment. There was no order for affixing the order on a conspicuous part of the property or the Court house or any other place as required under Order 21, Rule 54, CPC, Order 21, Rule 54, CPC says that:- 54. Attachment of immovable property- (1) Where the property is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer of charge. Attachment of immovable property- (1) Where the property is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer of charge. (1-A) The order shall also require the judgment-debtor to attend Court on a specified date to take notice of the date to be fixed for settling the terms of the proclamation of sale. (2) The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the Court house, and also, where the property is land paying revenue to the Government in the office of the Collector of the district in which the land is situated and where the property is land situated in a village, also in the office of the Gram Panchayat, if any, having jurisdiction over that village. 21. It was submitted that if the factum of attachment had been proclaimed to the Judgment debtors the Judgment debtors would have raised objections to the factum of attachment or the Judgment debtors would have made payment and satisfied the decree. It was submitted that first the account of the Judgment debtors was attached and thereafter the land of the Judgment debtors was attached . Attachment of the land of the judgment debtors proceeded surreptitiously. It was submitted that if the provisions of Order 21, Rule 54, CPC had been brought into play, situation calling for the sale of the property would not have arisen. 22. It was submitted that before settling the proclamation of sale, no reserved price was mentioned in the proclamation of sale. Further, the proclamation of sale was not made according to the mode of making proclamation as laid down in Order 21, Rule 67, CPC. Order 21 Rule 67, CPC lays down that :- 67. Mode of making proclamation - (1) Every proclamation shall be made and published, as nearly as may be, in the manner prescribed by Rule 54. sub-rule (2). Order 21 Rule 67, CPC lays down that :- 67. Mode of making proclamation - (1) Every proclamation shall be made and published, as nearly as may be, in the manner prescribed by Rule 54. sub-rule (2). (2) Where the Court so directs, such proclamation shall also be published in the Official Gazette or in a local newspaper, or in both, and the costs of such publication shall be deemed to be costs of the sale. (3) Where property is divided into lots for the purpose of being sold separately, it shall not be necessary to make a separate proclamation for each lot, unless proper notice of the sale cannot, in the opinion of the Court, otherwise be given. 23. The object of this provision is that property should attract as many bidders as possible and the property should fetch as high a price as it can. It was submitted that the provision of Order 21, Rule 84, CPC are mandatory. There should have been a certificate by the officer who holds the auction at the spot that he accepts the final bid made by such and such person. There is no sale if no such certificate has been given by him. It was held in Abdulla Khan V/s. Ganpat Rai, AIR 1930 Lahore 41 that a sale of immovable property in execution of a decree is not complete until the officer conducting the sale has accepted the final bid and the purchaser has paid the deposit required by Order 21, Rule 84. The period of 30 days prescribed by Rule 92 would not, therefore, begin to run against a person applying under R. 89 if for any reason, the final bid remains for a time unaccepted by the sale officer. It was submitted that in this case, there is no evidence that 25% of the purchase money was paid by the auction purchaser in whose favour the hammer fell at the spot. It was submitted that there is no note on the file that 25% of the bid money was paid to the sale officer at the spot. There is evidence that 1/4th of the sale money was deposited in the bank through treasury challan on 27-4-1993. It was submitted that this is because 1/4th of the sale money was paid to the sale officer on 26-4-1993. Remaining sale money was also deposited in time. 24. There is evidence that 1/4th of the sale money was deposited in the bank through treasury challan on 27-4-1993. It was submitted that this is because 1/4th of the sale money was paid to the sale officer on 26-4-1993. Remaining sale money was also deposited in time. 24. In my opinion this submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is tenable. It appears that 1/4th of the sale money was deposited on 27-4-1943 by the auction purchasers. If it had been deposited by the sale officer, he would have made an application to the Senior Subordinate Judge that 1/4th of the sale money was lying with him since 26-4-1993 and he be allowed to deposit it in the Court. It was submitted that if there was no time with the sale officer for deposit of the 1/4th of the sale money in the Court on 26-4-1993, he could have said so in the application if made on 27-4-1993 and prayed for the acceptance of the deposit from him on 27-4-1993. 25. It was next submitted that the sale was ordered to be conducted by SDO (Civil), Ludhiana whereas the sale was not conducted by SDO (Civil). It was submitted that the conduct of sale not by SDO (Civil) was void. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Darbara Singh V/s. Gram Sabha of Village Bhokhra, Tehsil and District Bhatinda (1985-2) PLR 176 where it was held that where the executing Court had directed SDO (Civil) to conduct the auction of the land in dispute and the auction was conducted by the Kanungo and not by SDO (Civil). Conduct of sale by Kanungo was a material irregularity. 26. Order 21, Rule 65, CPC lays down that :- 65. Sales by whom conducted and how made - Save as otherwise prescribed, every sale in execution of a decree shall be conducted by an officer of the Court or by such other person as the Court may appoint in this behalf, and shall be made by public auction in manner prescribed. 27 It appears that the Court ordered the sale to be conducted by SDO (C) so that the land could fetch more. Land in suit is situated in Haibibowal Khurd, Ludhiana. It could have fetched more if it had been sold by SDO (C), Ludhiana. 28. 27 It appears that the Court ordered the sale to be conducted by SDO (C) so that the land could fetch more. Land in suit is situated in Haibibowal Khurd, Ludhiana. It could have fetched more if it had been sold by SDO (C), Ludhiana. 28. It was submitted that the Improvement Trust has challenged the very award through civil writ petition No. 45545 of 1989 which has been admitted. It was submitted that if the very award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal is set aside or is toned down, the Improvement Trust will suffer irreparable injury if they are deprived of the property belonging to them in execution of an award which has ceased to exist altogether or which has ceased to exist to a substantial extent. It was submitted that the Trust had already paid a sum of Rs. 20,54,186.13 through the executing Court to the respondents i.e. a sum of Rs. 8,80,366.44 in excess, if the property of the Trust has still been sold that is negation of the rule of law, equity, justice and fair play. It was submitted that in this case it was nowhere declared that the bid had ever been accepted and therefore, the limitation never ran. 29. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the respondents-auction purchasers submitted that the objections were filed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Ludhiana after limitation. Sale took place on 26-4-83 while objections were filed on 4-9-93. It was submitted that objections could have been filed within 60 days of 26-4-93 i.e. when auction sale took place in view of the provisions of Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Article 127 of the Limitation Act lays down 60 days limitation for setting aside a sale in execution of decree and this limitation will start from the date of sale. It was submitted that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to such objections. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Mohan Lal V/s. Hari Prasad Yadav, 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases 398 where it was held that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to an application for setting aside an auction sale which is governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act. It was held that the application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. being an application under the provisions of Order 21. It was held that the application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. being an application under the provisions of Order 21. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, on its own language, is not applicable specifically. It was submitted that limitation for making deposit is 30 days from the date of sale under Rule 92(2) and not 60 days under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. It was submitted that to avoid this sale, the judgment-debtors should have deposited 5% of the auction money within 30 days of the date of sale. In this case as 5% of the auction money was deposited much after 30 days, no application under Order 21, Rule 89 was competent. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to P. K. Unni V/s. Nirmala Industries, AIR 1990 SC 933, it was submitted that Rule 89 postulates an application on deposit. It says "may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court". These words show that deposit is a condition precedent to the making of an application to set aside a sale. That condition must be satisfied within the period prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 92, which undoubtedly is 30 days. It was submitted that this application under Order 21, Rule 89 should have been made within 30 days of the date when sale took place and that application should have been accompanied by 5% of the auction money. In Suman Kumar V/s. Gram Panchayat, Bilaspur, 1992 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 427, it was held by this Court that application under Order 21, Rule 89 must be made within 30 days from the date of sale. Court has no power to extend the period of limitation. JD has to deposit the amount within time, in this case, however, objections should, in my opinion, be viewed not as one under Order 21, Rule 89 but as one under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. An application can be made for having sale set aside on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. Where fraud was perpetrated, length of time would not be admitted to refuse relief. Where fraud was perpetrated, length of time would not be admitted to refuse relief. It was held in Madan Lal V/s. Amar Paul, 1986 PLJ 319 that all objections which became available to the application after drawing up the proclamation of sale and till date of sale can be raised after auction sale as amended Rule 90 of Rule 21, as it stands with effect from 1-2-1977 now would be applicable. 30. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that judgment-debtor who had notice of attachment and also served with the proclamation of sale, would be barred by the principle of res judicata from raising such objection if he had raised objections to the proposed sale. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Gurlal Singh Cheema V/s. Punjab and Sind Bank, 1993 (2) PLR 615. In this case, there is no evidence that there was any notice to the judgment-debtors of the factum of attachment or the factum of the proposed sale as such, the judgment-debtors could file objections after the proposed sale. 31. For the reasons given above, this execution second appeal is allowed. Auction sale in favour of the respondent-auction purchasers is set aside sale certificate is also set aside. Judgment-debtor Improvement Trust shall pay the amount of sale money, to the auction purchaser with interest @ 12% per annum. On the amount of Rs. 3,27.500.00, interest shall run with effect from 27-4-93 and on the amount of Rs. 9,82.500.00 interest shall run with effect from 11-5-93, till realisation. If the auction purchasers had been put in possession, judgment-debtor shall be reput in possession. No order as to costs. If any restitution is possible to the Improvement Trust from the decree holders under Sec. 144, C.P.C. pursuant to this judgment or otherwise, Improvement Trust may pursue that remedy. Appeal allowed.