ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—These writ petitions by the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (for short, 'APMC'), Bhalki, Bidar District are purporting to be being aggrieved by the order passed by the Executing Court i.e., the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Bhalki in Execution Petition No. 33 of 2011 (LAC No. 571 of 1993) and Execution Petition No. 32 of 2011 (LAC No. 60 of 1993) on its file directing the writ petitioner to make an additional payment as the balance amount as on 13th April, 2012, in connection with the lands acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the APMC etc. and rejecting the memo of calculation under which the petitioner was not liable for depositing the said amount. Questioning such directions and rejecting the memo, the present writ petition. 2. The Executing Court had examined the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder as well as the judgment-debtor and had formulated the points as to which is the correct one and which has to be accepted, went into these questions and found that the quantum of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced by the Reference Court had been carried by the landowners to the Supreme Court though they had suffered adverse order before the High Court in their miscellaneous first appeal. The Supreme Court had found that the matter warrants some interference on certain aspects. 3. It appears the learned Judge of the Executing Court has examined this aspect and it is because of this reason the memo of calculation submitted by the decree-holder having been accepted and the memo of calculation submitted by the writ petitioner has been rejected. 4. Sri K.M. Ghate learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Executing Court should not have simply accepted the memo of calculation filed by the decree-holder; that it should have further looked into same etc. 5. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner was not liable to pay compensation for the entire extent of land as the petitioner was not able to get possession of some extent of land namely 1 acre 25 guntas of land on which some third parties have encroached upon. 6. It is submitted that the acquisition proceedings was way back in the year 1978 by the State Government for the benefit of the APMC. 7. The point raised by Mr. 6. It is submitted that the acquisition proceedings was way back in the year 1978 by the State Government for the benefit of the APMC. 7. The point raised by Mr. Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner has nothing to do with the payment of compensation to the landowners, whose land had been acquired. If the possession is not with them, it is for them to secure or recover possession in the manner known to law and for that reason the landowners cannot be penalized by depriving compensation for the extent of land acquired from the landowners. 8. Writ Court is not a Court of appeal to examine minute details either in calculation of payment or non-payment or details of interest etc. payable by the judgment-debtor to a decree-holder, on the premise that Executing Court has not appreciated the same properly etc. 9. It is open to the petitioner to seek adjustments, if any amounts are already paid, by bringing it to the notice of the Executing Court, but there cannot be an interference with the order on memo of calculation in these writ petitions. Writ petitions are dismissed.