( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges order rendered by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Ahmednagar, on 18-7-2007, whereby her application for addition of herself as a party in Special Darkhast No. 99/2001 came to be rejected. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel. ( 3 ) ONE Bansi and Raosaheb Bhingardive were original holders of the land in question which came to be acquired by the Respondent No. 4. The owners bansi and Raosaheb were dissatisfied with the quantum determined by the reference Court and, therefore, Reference under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act was filed by them. In the Reference Petition, the learned Judge of the Civil Court was pleased to partly allowed the claim and enhanced the compensation. An award was rendered accordingly. In the meanwhile, Bansi died. His widow Chandrabhagabai came to be substituted as legal representative in his place. She and said Raosaheb together filed Darkhast proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Ahmednagar. In the course of hearing of the said special Darkhast, the present petitioner filed an application for her substitution as legal representative of deceased Bansi Bhingardive. She asserted that her husband was minor when the Reference was filed and when D. H. No. 1 chandrabhagabai came to be substituted as a legal representative of deceased bansi Bhingardive. She asserted that she is one of the legal representative of deceased Bansi being his daughter-in-law. Therefore, she sought impleadment as one of the D. H. The Executing Court rejected her application. ( 4 ) THOUGH, served, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear. They did not raise any objection. On perusal of the impugned order, it is explicit that relationship between the petitioner and deceased Bansi is not in dispute. Not only that but vide reply Exh. 15, the Respondent No. 1 Chandrabhagabai has shown her willingness to give due share to the petitioner. The application came to be rejected only on the ground that the award shows names of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and none other. This can not be the ground to dislodge claim of the petitioner. The Executing Court is required to determine all questions which arise in the course of execution of a decree as required under section 47 of the Civil procedure Code. ( 5 ) IN Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata vs. Fulchand and others, 1997 (3)Mh. 1 and 2 and none other. This can not be the ground to dislodge claim of the petitioner. The Executing Court is required to determine all questions which arise in the course of execution of a decree as required under section 47 of the Civil procedure Code. ( 5 ) IN Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata vs. Fulchand and others, 1997 (3)Mh. L. J. (SC) 561 = 1997 (2) B. C. J. (SC) 347, the Apex Court held that the executing Court is empowered to resolve the dispute relating to claim of somebody regarding representation of the decree holder and its denial by the decree holder. In the present case, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not, in fact, denied legal rights available to the petitioners. The application of the petitioner could not be rejected only for the reason that her name does not appear in the decree. The impugned order is quite perverse and is rendered without application of judicial mind. Considering these aspects, the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The application of the petitioner shall be allowed by the Executing Court and she be impleaded as D. H. No. 1-A and shall be given her due share being legal heir of deceased Bansi Bhingardive. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition allowed.