ORDER 1. Petitioners 1 and 2 were the owners of Acs.4-18 gts. of land in Sy.No.841 and petitioner No.3 was the owner of Acs.4-27 gts in Sy.No.842 of Gadwal Revenue Village. The Government acquired an extent of Acs.34-35 gts. of land, including the said two items, for extending the Agricultural Market Yard. Notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act"), was published in the Gazette on 23.9.1985, and other subsequent steps were taken. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, dated 21.1.1987, determining the market value, at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre, for the lands in Category-I, and Rs.45,000/- per acre, for the lands in Category II. Not being satisfied with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, they sought for Reference under Section 18 of the Act. References were taken up by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, as O.P.Nos.121 and 122 of 1988. The market value was fixed at Rs.65/- and 60/-, per yard, for Categories I and II respectively, through the judgment dated 20.3.1995. 3. The Government filed A.S.Nos.433 and 435 of 1995, against the decrees passed by the trial court. The petitioners have also filed Cross-objections. Through its judgment, dated 10.4.1997, this court reduced the market value to Rs.31/- per sq.yard. SLPs filed by the Government, as well as the petitioners, before the Supreme Court were also dismissed. 4. The respondents initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, stating that the petitioners were paid amounts, in excess of their entitlement. Reference was made to the deposit of half of the amount awarded by the trial court, during the pendency of the appeals, in pursuance of an interim order, and withdrawal of the same by the petitioners. The 3rd respondent issued Distraint warrant, against the petitioners, proposing to recover a sum of Rs.3,49,789/- and Rs.20,821/-, respectively, through notices dated 28.9.1998. The said notices are challenged in this writ petition. 5. Sri T.Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Distraint notices are untenable in law, inasmuch as they were not preceded by demand notices. He further contends that when the amounts relate to the decrees passed by various courts, it was totally impermissible for the respondents, to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 6. Sri T.Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Distraint notices are untenable in law, inasmuch as they were not preceded by demand notices. He further contends that when the amounts relate to the decrees passed by various courts, it was totally impermissible for the respondents, to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the market value determined by the trial court was virtually slashed down to half, and at various points of time, the petitioners were paid amounts, which exceed their entitlement. He contends that it is competent for the respondents, to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners. 7. The occasion for the respondents, to issue Distraint warrants, against the petitioners, arose, on account of the reduction of the market value, for the lands acquired from the petitioners. Admittedly, these warrants were not preceded by demand notices. The issuance of such a demand notice is a condition precedent, under the Revenue Recovery Act, before a Distraint order is passed. 8. Therefore, there existed a serious irregularity, in issuing the impugned notices. 9. The respondents are entitled to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, whenever any amount due to them is not paid by the debtor. Admittedly, the amount sought to be recovered is neither a debt payable to the respondents, nor any other liquidated sum. The basis for the demand made by the respondents is the reduction of the market value in the appeals preferred before this court. The petitioners claim that even after the reduction of the market value, they are entitled to be paid further amount, towards the interest on solatium and additional market value. It is also stated that they have filed execution petitions for this purpose. 10. It is only the executing court, which would be in a better position to determine the amount that becomes payable to the petitioners towards compensation for the amounts acquired from them, and to decide whether the amount already paid to them is in excess or deficit, and what is due to them after the reduction of the market value by this court. The unilateral exercise, or calculation undertaken by the respondents, cannot be recognized in law, in matters of this nature. The unilateral exercise, or calculation undertaken by the respondents, cannot be recognized in law, in matters of this nature. Even if the petitioners have not filed any fresh E.P., the respondents can certainly file an independent execution petition, or application, on the basis of their calculations. In such an event, the executing court would be in a position to determine the correctness, or otherwise of the claims put forwarded by the respondents, or the petitioners. 11. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is left open to the respondents, to put forward their claim before the executing court, in the existing E.Ps, if any, or by filing fresh EP or application. The executing court shall decide the same, in accordance with Law, within a period of three months, from the date of presentation. There shall be no order as to costs.