ORDER : The appeal by the landowner is against the order passed by the executing Court, as affirmed by the High Court, holding that the appellant-landowner is not entitled to any further compensation on account of interest but also that the department will be at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings for the amount over-drawn. 2. The execution petition was filed claiming payment of a balance amount due on account of interest which was calculated as on 31.12.2003 though the date of payment was 19.07.2005. This claim was opposed on the ground that the compensation paid and received till date, on proper calculation, contains an excess amount inasmuch as interest on the solatium amount was also awarded while computing compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). 3. The aforesaid contention of the department found favour with the executing Court which accordingly directed that recovery proceedings may be initiated. As the said order has been affirmed by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the landowner the present appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material. 5. Insofar as the claim made in the execution petition is concerned a finding has been recorded by the executing Court that interest on the solatium amount at the rate of 12% has inadvertently been calculated under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The executing Court has also recorded that the appellant-landowner is not entitled to any further compensation on account of interest inasmuch as, on proper calculation, even if the entitlement of interest is taken to be 19.07.2005 no amount would be due and, in fact, there has been an over payment. That part of the order of the executing Court and the High Court, therefore, cannot be disturbed. 6. However, we have noticed that in the execution petition, after holding the landowner not to be entitled to any further amount, directions have been issued for initiation of recovery proceedings. If the landowner was not found entitled to any further amount the execution petition ought to have been dismissed and closed. No directions for recovery ought to have been passed thereafter. 7. If the landowner was not found entitled to any further amount the execution petition ought to have been dismissed and closed. No directions for recovery ought to have been passed thereafter. 7. We, therefore, interfere with the aforesaid part of the Order of the reference Court and as affirmed by the High Court and direct that the recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant-landowner shall stand set aside and quashed. 8. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.