Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.:- Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that some factual mistakes have crept in the judgment which requires correction. If these mistakes will remain in the judgment the revisionist would not derive any benefit of the judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 3. The factual mistakes have to be corrected. Let the order rendered by this Court on 25.5.2010 be read as under:- Heard. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay condoned. Let the case be allotted a regular number. Issue notice. 4. Counter affidavit may be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List in the third week of August, 2010 for admission/hearing. 5. Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material on record. Sri Nalini Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of G.D.A. 6. It emerges from the record that after the land acquisition proceedings were over and reference court had settled the amount of land acquisition compensation, the final award was declared, the execution case was registered and the execution proceedings for payment of compensation to the landowners were proceeding. The execution proceedings were challenged by the Ghaziabad Development Authority by filing three first appeals ; F.A. No. 478 of 2000, F.A. No.479 of 2000 and F.A.No. 480 of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court has passed a detailed order on 21.3.2001, allowing the revisionist land owners to withdraw 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the court below and the entire amount awarded by the SLAO. An interim protection was given to the respondents. Now there is no interim order available to the respondents as the interim order was vacated on 19.3.2002. Other orders were passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 12.3.2003, 25.4.2003. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Srivastava has submitted that against the execution proceeding, the matter went up to the Supreme Court at the instance of Ghaziabad Development Authority by filing appeal No.927 of 2006 . The Apex Court had declined to stay the execution proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 22.7.09 is on record. There is no reason for stalling the execution proceedings . The Apex Court had declined to stay the execution proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 22.7.09 is on record. There is no reason for stalling the execution proceedings . Since there is no interim order passed by any court either by Hon'ble High Court or Supreme Court, the execution proceedings which were initiated must be concluded immediately and the amount be released in favour of the revisionist. 8. This fact was brought to the notice of the executing court by filing formal application. However, the executing court declined to order for payment of entire amount of compensation to the revisionist, although whole amount is lying deposited in the court. This was done in furtherance of the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.1, Ghaziabad . The execution proceedings were stayed. The court has indicated that it is awaiting further order from the High Court. 9. In view of above, it is amply clear that there is no legal impediment in releasing the amount of land acquisition compensation to the revisionist land owners. Executing court must proceed further and release the amount to the revisionist. The amount of compensation has already been computed in furtherance of orders passed by the High Court and the executing court dated 3.8.2002 which is invogue. The amount of compensation duly computed with interest etc. upto 31.3.2010 has already been submitted with the executing court. It is lying deposited in the court. 10. The executing court is directed to release the entire amount of compensation in favour of the revisionist land owners immediately as there is no legal hurdle in doing so. From the order sheet of the court below brought on record the impugned order appears to be illegal. Accordingly the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court no.1, Ghaziabad in execution case no.13 of 2000- Moti Board Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & others deserves to be stayed. The executing court is directed to release the entire amount of compensation as well as the amount of the award of the SLAO in favour of the decree holder/revisionist within a week. The operation of the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Execution Case No.10 of 2000- Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others shall remain stayed till further orders of the Court. 11. The operation of the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Execution Case No.10 of 2000- Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others shall remain stayed till further orders of the Court. 11. Accordingly, the application is allowed.