JUDGMENT Ravi Shanker Jha, C.J. (Oral) This is an application filed by the applicant-petitioners under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution and enforcement of the judgment dated 09.01.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984. The prayer made in the application is to the following effect:- i) To comply with the judgment dated 09.01.2008 (Annexure E-4) in letter and spirit; ii) To assess compensation with respect to area exceeding 25% of the acquired land which was equivalent to 1/4th share in total land measuring 21459 sq. yards which 1/4th share comes to nearly 5364.75 sq. yards and thus 75% thereof comes to roughly 4023.5 sq. yards, the compensation regarding which is required to be paid by the judgment debtors/respondents to the petitioners; iii) To pay solatium and interest in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act; iv) To pay the cost of Rs.2 lacs; 2. The facts leading to the filing of the execution application are that the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, drew up a Town Planning Scheme under Section 192(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. An area measuring 21459 sq. yards fell within the area covered by the scheme and the petitioner was owner to the extent of 1/4th share. However, before any further action could be taken, the Corporation Act came into force with effect from 21.12.1976, thus, bringing into existence the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of taking over his land by Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana as well as of quantum of compensation paid to him filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984 before this Court praying for quashing the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 275(1) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 as ultra-vires and unconstitutional and for issuance of a writ declaring the orders dated 01.12.1983 (Annexure P-2) and 23.04.1984 (Annexure P-5) as illegal. The writ petition was ultimately allowed vide order dated 09.01.2008 with the following directions:- "Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the orders Annexures P-2 and P-5, being illegal and void are set aside. The respondents are directed to assess compensation, with respect to the area exceeding 25% of the petitioner's acquired land, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act from the stage of pronouncing of an award. The respondents are directed to assess compensation, with respect to the area exceeding 25% of the petitioner's acquired land, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act from the stage of pronouncing of an award. The petitioner, if dissatisfied with the award would be at liberty to resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act." 4. As the respondents i.e. State of Punjab as well as the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, did not determine or pay the compensation to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition i.e. COCP No. 3177 of 2011, which came up for hearing on 15.05.2012, by which date, order determining compensation was passed on 15.03.2012 based on the assessment made by the Collector on 15.02.2011 allegedly in compliance of the orders passed in the writ petition. The following order was passed by the Contempt Court after taking all aspects into consideration:- "7. In my considered view, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. It appears that acquisition of land in the instance case is not under the Land Acquisition Act, hence it may not be obligatory to issue notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the aforesaid Act and pass an award under Section 9. The private property appears to have been utilized while passing a 'building scheme' under Section 275 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, power where under has been upheld by this Court. 8. Suffice it to observe that if the petitioners are aggrieved by inadequacy of the compensation assessed by Collector, Ludhiana, they shall be at liberty to challenge the Collector's assessment made vide Letter dated 15.02.20211, a copy whereof has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners in Court. 9. With liberty aforementioned, this Contempt Petition is disposed of. Rule discharged." 5. From a perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Contempt Court, it is evident that this Court accepting the response of the respondents, held that the steps taken by the respondents to assess compensation did not amount to any contempt and at the same time granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Collector's assessment of compensation made vide letter dated 15.02.2011, a copy whereof was handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court. 6. 6. The petitioner had also filed an application seeking review of the order dated 15.05.2012 passed in COCP No. 3177 of 2011, which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2012 with a clarification that the observation made in the order holding that the contempt proceedings were not maintainable would have no bearing on the merits of the case. 7. The petitioner thereafter filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 11361-11361 of 2013 before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12.08.2015 observing that the petitioner would not be prevented from seeking appropriate redress in appropriate proceedings for payment of compensation, lawfully due to him. 8. After the orders passed by the Writ Court, Contempt Court as well as the Supreme Court, the petitioner has now filed the present application under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution and enforcement of the judgment dated 09.01.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984. 9. At the very outset, this Court questioned the maintainability of the application seeking execution of the judgment dated 09.01.2008 passed by this Court, in response to which no provision of law has been placed before this Court. This Court has also clearly and specifically enquired as to what relief surived and could be granted in the application for execution regarding determination of compensation and solatium after the orders passed in the writ proceedings, contempt proceedings and by the Supreme Court, to which also no satisfactory explanation or reply has been given. 10. Quite apart from the above, it is also observed that the Contempt Court in its order dated 15.05.2012 had granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Collector's assessment made vide letter dated 15.02.2011, a copy whereof was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court. Evidently, there is no challenge to the said Collector's assessment made vide letter dated 15.02.2011 in the execution proceedings. 11. What has been placed on record and shown to this Court is a communication dated 15.02.2012 of the Assistant Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana issued to the petitioner in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 09.01.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.4922 of 1984. Even this communication has not been assailed in the present proceedings. 12. 11. What has been placed on record and shown to this Court is a communication dated 15.02.2012 of the Assistant Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana issued to the petitioner in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 09.01.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.4922 of 1984. Even this communication has not been assailed in the present proceedings. 12. As far as the prayer for compliance of the judgment dated 09.01.2008 is concerned, this Court as well as the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings have already held that pursuant to the directions contained therein, the respondent-authorities have taken steps for determining the compensation which cannot be said to be in derogation of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984. The petitioner has also been granted liberty to assail the same and claim compensation. 13. Evidently, the petitioner instead of doing so has filed the present execution proceedings inspite of the fact that, rightly or wrongly, the respondents have determined the compensation in compliance of the order dated 09.01.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984. That apart, it is settled law that the Executing Court cannot go behind or elaborate upon the original order. It can neither add or subtract anything from the original order and can only execute it as it is as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. S.N.Nagarkar 2002(2) SCC 475 . 14. In the instant case, the order passed in the writ petition has been executed, rightly or wrongly, and this Court in contempt and thereafter the Supreme Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to assail the same and claim proper compensation. The issues and grounds raised by the applicant in the case based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. and others 2020(2) SCC 569 and other decisions should infact be taken up by the applicant to challenge the amount of compensation in exercise of the liberty granted to him in appropriate proceedings. The petitioner is still at liberty to do so and take up all grounds while doing so. Nothing further remains to be executed as far as order dated 09.01.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984 is concerned. 15. The petitioner is still at liberty to do so and take up all grounds while doing so. Nothing further remains to be executed as far as order dated 09.01.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984 is concerned. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the orders passed in the writ proceedings, contempt proceedings and by the Supreme Court, the appropriate remedy that has been granted to the applicant-petitioners is to assail and challenge the compensation determined by the respondent-authorities in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed. The present application for execution of the order dated 09.01.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1984 is not maintainable and misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.