JUDGMENT Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The claimant-decree holder is assailing the order dated 28 September 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffarnagar in Execution Case No. 18 of 2008 (Shreechand v. Meena), whereby, application No. 27-Ga for attachment of the property of the judgement-debtor to recover the decretal amount was rejected. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the applicant on 20 February 2008 awarding Rs. 7,30,000/-. The applicant approached the Tribunal to execute the award upon which the Tribunal in terms of Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act issued recovery citation to the Collector, Muzaffarnagar to execute and recover the decretal amount. It appears that the District Magistrate pursuant thereof, did not proceed with the execution proceeding to recover the sum, as arrears of land revenue. During the intervening period, the judgement-debtor, first respondent, in order to frustrate the execution transferred the land being Khata No. 151, Khasra No. 51 ad-measuring 1-2750 Hectare situated in village Azizpur Pargana Bidauli, Tehsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar in favour of her ‘bhabhi’ Smt. Naseema wife of late Raseed who, thereafter, transferred the property to one Nafe Singh son of Ramdheer. 3. In this background, the applicant preferred an application before the Court below seeking attachment of the property in order to satisfy the decretal amount. Learned trial Court rejected the application stating that the recovery certificate in terms of Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has already been issued to the concerned Collector, therefore, the Tribunal is not competent of any other action under the Act, accordingly, directed that the application be consigned to record. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the approach of the Tribunal would render the award non-executable as the Collector would not attach the property to recover the decretal amount on the plea that the property stands transferred after the date of the award. It is sought to be contended that the procedure prescribed for recovery as arrears of land revenue is contained in Section 282 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act read with Order 21 Rule 64 of C.P.C., as such, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal who have directed the Collector to recover the said amount by attachment and sale of the property in order to satisfy the award. Merely, issuance of recovery certificate, thereafter, not pursuing the matter with the Collector would render the award meaningless and unrecoverable. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. It is incumbent upon the Tribunal to ensure that the award is duly satisfied and in the event of the award being bye-passed by transfer of property by the judgement-debtor to third party would not be an impediment in the attachment of the property, as such, the order dated 28 September 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge is set aside. 5. It is directed that the Court below shall pass fresh orders on the application ensuring that the sum be recovered after attachment and sale of the property of the judgement-debtor by the collector in terms of the provisions under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act pertaining to recovery read with Order 21 Rule 64 within a stipulated time. 6. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 7. No cost.