ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the decree holder challenging the order of the executing Court dated 19.6.2015 whereby the application of respondent No.1 judgment debtor under sections 47 and 151 of the CPC has been allowed and it has been found that decree has been satisfied and execution proceedings have been closed. 2. In brief, the award in the land Acquisition proceedings in favour of the petitioner was passed which was subject matter of Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in Reference the ADJ, Indore had passed the Award dated 31.3.2009. The petitioners had filed execution claiming the amount which was awarded in reference, in which the respondent No.1 had filed an application stating that the awarded amount was paid to the petitioner and accepting the same the execution proceedings have been closed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners' land in Survey No.262/5 admeasuring 0.035 hectares was also acquired but by mistake it did not form part of the award passed by the ADJ, therefore the compensation should also be granted by the executing Court for that survey Number. He further submits that respondent No.1 was not entitled to deduct TDS on the amount awarded, therefore the petitioner is entitled for the same also. He also submits that similar application filed by the respondent No.1 was rejected by the executing Court by order dated 7.11.2012 which was not later on reviewed or set aside, therefore fresh application was not maintainable. 4. As against this, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and as per award of the learned ADJ in reference, full amount has been deposited by the respondent No.1, therefore the execution has rightly been closed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Undisputedly the award of the learned ADJ in reference is in respect of the survey No.231/1/5 and 226/1/5. By the said award, no compensation amount for survey No.262/5 for an area of 0.035 hectare as claimed by the petitioners has been granted. The petitioners are seeking execution of the award passed by the reference Court, therefore the executing Court cannot go beyond the said award. By the said award, no compensation amount for survey No.262/5 for an area of 0.035 hectare as claimed by the petitioners has been granted. The petitioners are seeking execution of the award passed by the reference Court, therefore the executing Court cannot go beyond the said award. This proposition is well settled that executing Court is required to act within the bounds of the decree and it cannot travel beyond it. (See: 2007(3) MPLJ 425, V.G.S.S. School v. Rajwanti and 2014(2) MPLJ 663, Shivshankar v. Dilip). 7. In view of aforesaid position of law, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that compensation amount for survey No.262/5 should also be granted by the executing Court, though no such award exists in favour of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. 8. So far as the second submission of counsel for the petitioners about the order dated 7.11.2012 is concerned, on perusal of the said order it is noticed that at that stage the prayer of the respondent No.1 for closing the executing proceeding on the ground that decree was satisfied was rejected, since it was found that decree was not satisfied. The impugned order reflects that thereafter the respondent No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.11,33,956/- on 7.2.2013. It has also been noted by the executing Court in the impugned order that earlier also the respondent No.1 deposited a sum of Rs.16,73,758/- and 11,18,574/-. Nothing has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners to show that the amount has not been deposited in terms of the award of the reference Court. Since the due amount in terms of the reference Court has already been deposited, therefore no error has been committed by the executing Court in closing the execution proceedings. So far as the TDS amount is concerned, the executing Court has already noted that as per the return filed by the decree holder for the assessment year 2008-09 the TDS amount has already been received by him. Even otherwise the petitioners are entitled to claim it in accordance with law from the Income Tax Department. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that impugned order passed by the executing Court does not suffer from any illegality and no case for interference is made out. 10. Even otherwise the petitioners are entitled to claim it in accordance with law from the Income Tax Department. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that impugned order passed by the executing Court does not suffer from any illegality and no case for interference is made out. 10. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, reported in (2010)9 SCC 385 , while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a Court, or Tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in case where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order of the trial Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.