JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Petitioner is the judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 65 of 1990 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore and the opposite party members are the decree-holders. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) while hearing to the objection raised by the petitioner to the executability of the amended execution petition has passed the impugned order on 20.3.1999. For the reasons indicated below, this Court finds the impugned order to be non-sustainable in the eye of law and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh consideration by the executing Court in accordance with law. 2. So far as the fact is concerned, there is some factual inconsistency in certain events which has been noted in the impugned order as well as in the revision application. According to the fact noted in the impugned order certain land was acquired for construction of Dhanapur Branch Canal as per the Government Notification dated 20.11.1978 under Sec 4(1) of the Land Acquisi¬tion Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’). The date of the award under Section 11 of the Act of the Collector is not noted in the im¬pugned order. It is noted therein that reference was made under Section 18 of the Act and learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) registering the same as M.J.C. No. 37 of 1980 passed the award on 28.10.1982 where as the date of such award has been noted as 15.10.1982 in paragraph 2 of the revision application. That award was challenged in the High Court in appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Act by both the parties having been registered as F.A. Nos. 35 and 43 of 1983. This Court dismissed both the appeals by affirming to the valuation determined by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). As noted in the impugned order it was observed by this Court in the common judgment “in the circum¬stance, we do not find justification for interference with the award given by the trial Court. It goes without saying that claimants are entitled to statutory benefits under the Act as admissible.” 3. In spite of the above noted fact in the revision appli¬cation petitioner has stated that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Orissa Gazette on 16.12.1978, award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the petitioner on 24.12.1979 and possession of the land was taken on 22.12.1979. In spite of the above noted fact in the revision appli¬cation petitioner has stated that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Orissa Gazette on 16.12.1978, award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the petitioner on 24.12.1979 and possession of the land was taken on 22.12.1979. Matters relating to passing of the award by the Court below and appeals carried by both the parties under Section 54 of the Act are not in dispute. But petitioner has stated that award was passed by the Court below on 15.10.1982 and the appeals were disposed of by the High Court on 8.2.1990. 4. As noted earlier since the matter is required to be remanded, therefore, the executing Court is to verify about the relevant dates from the concerned case record and to note the same correctly and accurately. 5. Petitioner’s further contention is that opposite parties when filed an execution petition, in that they claimed for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,66,047.54 paise. On 20.11.1993 petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 78,478/- and thereafter a further total amount of Rs. 92,671.54 on 4.7.1994 and that re¬sulted in deposit of an excess amount of Rs. 102.54 paise and it is thereafter only that the opposite parties on 6.11.1998 filed application for amendment of execution petition and they claimed a further amount of Rs. 57,955.17 paise after adjusting all the aforesaid amounts deposited by the petitioner. 6. In the impugned order learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) referring to the ratio in the cases of K.Kamalajamman¬niavaru (dead) by L.Rs. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and vice versa, AIR 1985 S.C. 576 ; Buti Barik v. State of Orissa, represented by the Land Acquisition Officer, H.L.O., Sambalpur, 1990 (II) OLR 86; and State of Orissa, represented by Land Acqui¬sition Officer, Rengali and Bhimkund Dam Project, Sambalpur v. Darasania Samal, 1996 (I) OLR 261 rejected the prayer of the petitioner and issued direction for payment of balance amount of Rs. 57,955.17 paise. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to and relying on the decisions of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and other, AIR 1995 SC 1012 ; Union of India and another v. Raghu¬bir Singh (dead) by L.Rs. 57,955.17 paise. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to and relying on the decisions of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and other, AIR 1995 SC 1012 ; Union of India and another v. Raghu¬bir Singh (dead) by L.Rs. etc., AIR 1989 SC 1933 ; Arjun Sethi v. L.A. Collector, Cuttack and others, AIR 1998 Orissa 34; and Kashiben Bhikabal and others v.Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, AIR 2002 SC 1105 argued that the position of law as stated in the above noted decisions referred to by the Court below in the impugned order no longer hold to be good law in view of the above noted citations relied on by the petitioner and without considering the position of law as enunciated by the apex Court in the Constitution Bench learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) committed an illegality in referring to and relying on overruled decision of the apex Court. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 8. Mr. Manoj Misra, on the other hand, referring to the ratio in the case of Arjun Sethi (supra) in paragraph 10 (iv) of the said decision argued that when the decree was amended and that has reached its finality therefore the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and he is to execute the same. 9. A detailed deliberation in the above context is not necessary because the law relating to part of the controversy is covered by the following enunciation made in the case of Arjun Sethi (supra). In that case, this Court has held that : “10. 9. A detailed deliberation in the above context is not necessary because the law relating to part of the controversy is covered by the following enunciation made in the case of Arjun Sethi (supra). In that case, this Court has held that : “10. Since such question is cropping up very often specially before the executing Court, it is better to summarize the princi¬ples relating to applicability of the benefits under the amended Act, as called out from the decisions of the Supreme Court re¬ported in AIR 1989 SC 1933 , AIR 1995 SC 1012 ; (1995) 1 SCC 367 : ( AIR 1995 SC 581 ); (1995) 1 SCC 383 and AIR 1992 SC 473 , in the following manner :- (i) If the award of the Collector is after 13.4.1982, the claimant is entitled to all the benefits of the amended Act; (ii) If the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Section 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, the claimant is entitled to the benefits under Section 23 (2) and Section 28, as amended by the Amending Act, but is not entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act; (iii) If the award of the Collector as well as that of the Civil Court under Section 10 of the Act in prior to 13.4.1982, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of the amended Act in the appeals against such awards, and (iv) If there is specific direction by the Civil Court in reference under Section 18, or in appeal regarding payment of any benefits under the amended Act and such direction had not been reversed or modified by any competent appellate forum, the exe¬cuting Court is bound to give effect to such direction notwith¬standing the fact that the claimant was not entitled to such benefits.” The above decision being on the basis of the interpretation of law made by the apex Court in AIR 1989 SC 1933 (supra) and series of decisions including AIR 1995 SC 1012 , the Court below should have followed the same in proper manner. The five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the above noted case of Union of India (supra) have also provided the guidelines relating to the manner in which calculation should be made of the award, solatium and interest and that the interest awarded in favour of the claimant shall not be counted for determination of the percentage of the solatium and the vice versa. Apart from that, the apex Court in that decision have been pleased to propound relating to lack of jurisdiction of the executing Court to amend the decree i.e., the award passed under the Act. In that respect the observation of this Court in the case of Arjun Sethi (supra), as quoted above is sufficient to give the guidelines to the Court below. Since the substance of the award passed the mode of calculation of the dues for seeking the execution proceeding for recovery etc. are not available from the impugned order, therefore, in stead of decid¬ing the same this Court remands the case with direction to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) to consider such matters afresh and to pass appropriate order on the objection raised by the petitioner to the executability of the decree which, in essence is a prayer advanced u/s 47 of the Code. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh adjudication of the objection raised by the judgment-debtor. Petition disposed of.