ORDER : 1. Rule. Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent-GIDC. 2. The petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1985, have challenged the order passed below Exh.1 dated 30.01.2021, by the Executing Court in Regular Civil Execution No. 147 of 2010. 3. The shorts facts leading to the filing of present petition may be summarized as under: 3.1 The present petitioners had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1985 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar with a prayer for declaration and permanent injunction inter-alia praying that the land being land loosers from the respondent-Corporation as per their application dated 18.04.1981, which was partly allowed and the petitioners were declared as “land loosers” and were granted the lands/shades as prayed for in their application from the defendants/respondent-Corporation on priority basis being land loosers. The judgment and decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1985 dated 04.01.1988. The respondent-Corporation challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed on 04.01.1988 by preferring Regular Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1988, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2003. The present petitioners preferred Regular Execution Application No. 147 of 2010 before the Executing Court. The Executing Court dismissed the application preferred by the present petitioners clarifying that as per the declarative pursis passed by the defendant-GIDC, the plaintiffs are at liberty to accept the land of plot to the tune of 50 sq. mtrs. as per policy, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per sq. mtrs. within 90 days of this order and may withdraw amount deposited in the Court. Hence, this petition is preferred by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that the Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has modified the decree dated 04.01.1998 passed in favour of the present petitioners which is not permissible under the law. It is further submitted that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, which was passed and attained finality. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that the Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has modified the decree dated 04.01.1998 passed in favour of the present petitioners which is not permissible under the law. It is further submitted that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, which was passed and attained finality. That Regular Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1988 preferred by the respondents before the District Court, Jamnagar, challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Court was dismissed by the Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the question as to validity of the decree cannot be decided by the Executing Court for modifying the decree. Referring Order 21 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is submitted that the Executing Court is bound to follow the decree passed by the Court of Appeal in relation to the execution of such decree. It is further submitted that as per the order which was passed in another petition which has no nexus with the case of the present petitioners as they were not party to that petition, there is no question of applicability of that order to the petitioners and however, by applying analogy of that order, the Executing Court has passed the order. Referring certain documents i.e. the application preferred by the petitioners for applying the open land/shed, instructions for filing the application, it is submitted that it was clearly shown in the application itself that the applicants have applied for allotting 10,000 sq. mtrs. of the land in their application. The Trial Court has also observed in the final order passed that the applicants are entitled to claim for the land as per their application preferred by them. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments: (i) S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (Dead) by LRs. and Others in Civil Appeal No. 7800 of 2014, decided on 27.08.1996 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (ii) Rameshwar Dass Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1996 (8) Laws (SC) 200. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioners to quash and set aside the order dated 30.01.2021 passed below Exh.1 in Regular Civil Execution No. 147 of 2010 in Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1985 and grant the prayer as prayed in the execution application. 6. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioners to quash and set aside the order dated 30.01.2021 passed below Exh.1 in Regular Civil Execution No. 147 of 2010 in Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1985 and grant the prayer as prayed in the execution application. 6. From the other side, learned advocate for the respondent-GIDC has contended in his arguments that one claimant viz. Mr. Hashmukhlal Amrutlal Shah filed Special Civil Application before this Court, wherein detailed affidavit was filed as per the order by the GIDC, mapping of plots by Jamnagar Area Development Authority (JADA) as per the JADA Rules and permission of Director of Municipal Corporation Gujarat State Allotment of Land of GIDC was proceeded and as per the policy of GIDC. It is further urged by learned advocate for the respondent that all the applicants as per the priority-list were entitled to get plot of 50 sq. mtrs. despite their huge demands because all the applicants as per priority-list without being any kind of discrimination were to be treated equally. It is further submitted that said applicant viz. Hasmukhlal Shah applied on 26.12.1977 and was stand at Rs. 11 in priority list, whereas the present petitioners had applied on 17.04.1981 and were standing at S. No. 229. That all the applicants have treated equally by allotting equal land of 50 sq. mtrs. as per the direction of this Court. That the petitioners were intimated to take over their 50 sq. mtrs. of land at the rate of Government Policy, but they have not complied with the conditions. That learned Senior Civil Judge in the suit preferred by the plaintiffs, has never passed any order that the applicants are entitled to get the land of 10,000 sq. mtrs. as demanded by them. That the Court-below has clearly observed in the final order that as per their entitlement, the land would be allotted to them by the defendants. It is further submitted that the Executing Court has never exceeded its jurisdiction by passing the impugned order. That there is no error committed by the learned Executing Court i.e. 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in his order dated 30.01.2021. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. This Court may not interfere in the impugned order considering the peculiar facts of the case. That there is no error committed by the learned Executing Court i.e. 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in his order dated 30.01.2021. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. This Court may not interfere in the impugned order considering the peculiar facts of the case. Hence it was requested by him to dismiss the present petition and confirm the order passed by the Executing Court dated 30.01.2021 in Regular Civil Execution No. 147 of 2010. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material on record placed before this Court, it is undisputed fact that Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1985 was preferred by the present petitioners before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar for declaration and permanent injunction was allowed by the Court vide order dated 04.01.1988. It was declared by the Court that the plaintiffs, being a land loosers, are entitled to get open lands/sheds situated at Shankar Tekari Udyog Nagar of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Jamnagar as per the priority as well as their application. It was further ordered to allot the open land/plot as per their entitlement on priority basis. It was further ordered that reserved plot kept for the plaintiffs shall not be allotted to any other persons except allotting the plot to the plaintiffs and permanent injunction was granted. Prayer for allotting the land at the concessional rate was dismissed by the Court-below. It further appears that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the respondents by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1988 which was also dismissed by the District Court, Jamnagar vide order dated 30.01.2003. The judgment and order passed in appeal preferred by the respondents dated 30.01.2003 has attained finality. It appears that in the execution petition preferred by the present petitioners i.e. Regular Civil Execution No. 147 of 2010, the respondents contended that the claimant viz. Mr. Hasmukhlal Shah has filed an application before this Court, wherein an affidavit was filed by the respondents and as per the prioritylist, all the applicants including the present petitioners were entitled to get plot of 50 sq. mtrs. as the applicants were standing at S. No. 229 in the priority-list. The Executing Court considered the said aspect by observing as under: “Thus, all the applicants/beneficiaries have treated to be equally without being any kind of discrimination on part of the defendants-GIDC. mtrs. as the applicants were standing at S. No. 229 in the priority-list. The Executing Court considered the said aspect by observing as under: “Thus, all the applicants/beneficiaries have treated to be equally without being any kind of discrimination on part of the defendants-GIDC. Thus, in light of the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Trial Court in the year of 1988, the Trial Court has passed the order to have the land to the plaintiffs from the defendant as they are eligible, not to the tune of 10,000 Sq. Mtrs. Further, no any such specific demand was ever made before the Hon’ble Trial Court by the plaintiffs in the relief para and therefore, no such specific issues were framed by the Hon’ble Trial Court and in the same way, the Hon’ble Court granted earlier to the plaintiffs as per their relief. Therefore, in such ambiguous situation, judgment can quite be interpreted by the Executing Court for the purpose of execution of decree. Thus, on these counts the execution of the plaintiffs for 10,000 Sq. Mtrs. @ 30/- is not executable.” 8. It is crystal clear that in the suit, judgment and decree was passed in favour of the petitioners. There was no such dispute raised by the respondents in execution proceedings initiated by the petitioners. The question of validity of the decree cannot be decided by the Executing Court. Order 21 Rule 18 of the CPC provides that any order of the Court by which decree was passed, or such Court of appeal as aforesaid, in relation to the execution of such decree shall be binding upon the Court to which the decree was sent for execution. As contended by the respondents in the execution application preferred by the present petitioners, for the first time, the objections were raised in respect of the application preferred by another applicant viz. Hasmukhlal Shah and the affidavit was filed by the respondents or the policy to allot the plot of 50 sq. mtrs. to the different applicants as well as the name of the plaintiff at S. No. 229 in the priority-list. Such contentions and objections were not raised by the respondents in the suit or in an appeal preferred by them. The observations made in the Special Civil Application preferred by Mr. Hamsukhlal Shah would not be applicable in the present facts of the case. Such contentions and objections were not raised by the respondents in the suit or in an appeal preferred by them. The observations made in the Special Civil Application preferred by Mr. Hamsukhlal Shah would not be applicable in the present facts of the case. That judgment and decree was passed by the Civil Court which was confirmed by the District Court in an appeal preferred by the respondents. Further, it appears that in the same execution petition preferred by the present petitioners, the Executing Court was pleased to pass an order dated 29.10.2013 below Exh.45 to the extent that the respondents had prepared the statement showing the price of land on the priority basis at Annexure-K. Considering the statement prepared by the respondents, the price of land was written at Rs. 25/- per sq. mtrs. The petitioners were ready to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. mtrs. The Executing Court further observed that as per the measurement of 10,000 sq. mtrs. it was necessary to pass an order to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs by the present petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs before the Court, within a period of 20 days. This order was passed on 29.10.2013. When specific order was passed by the predecessor of the Court on 29.10.2013, the subsequent order dated 30.01.2021 would not be permissible. Further, in the case of S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (Dead) by LRs. and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution and in another case i.e. Rameshwar Dass Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Para-4 as under: “4. It is well settled legal position that an executing Court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Order 21, CPC. In view of the fact that it is a money claim, what was to be computed is the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done and the Court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder in a sum of Rs. In view of the fact that it is a money claim, what was to be computed is the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done and the Court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder in a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- and odd, the question that arises is whether executing Court could step out and grant a decree for interest which was not part of the decree for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution. In our view, the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and the order is one without jurisdiction and is thereby a void order. It is true that High Court normally exercises its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC but once it is held that the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, it is but the duty of the High Court to correct the same. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with and setting aside the order directing payment of interest.” 9. Here also, it appears that the Executing Court has traveled beyond the order and decree passed by the Trial Court under execution petition. There was no question of allotting 50 sq. mtrs. land as per the affidavit filed in another petition by another applicant viz. Hasmukhlal Shah. Upon raising contentions and objections, the learned Executing Court committed grave error in dismissing the execution petition preferred by the present petitioners. Hence, the impugned order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the Executing Court in Regular Civil Execution No. 147 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Executing Court shall proceed further from the stage and decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously. 10. With the above observations, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.