JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The challenge in this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nahan, H.P., in an application moved by respondent No.1- Insurer, under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the consequent auction notice issued by the revenue agency on the basis of this order. 2. Facts 2(i) A claim petition was preferred by present respondents No. 2 to 6 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.20,000,00/- on account of death of Sh. Pati Ram. Sh. Pati Ram was husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondents No. 3 to 6. 2(ii). In the claim petition that was preferred on 07.04.2015 initially one Sh. Hira Singh son of Sh. Bhajnu was impleaded as respondent No.1. He was reflected as owner of Bolero Camper No. HP-17B-4425 i.e. the vehicle involved in the accident. It appears from the record that accident in question took place on 27.5.2014 at about 11.00 p.m. Sh. Hira Singh, stated owner of the vehicle in question had died on 01.02.2013. 2(iii). Taking into consideration the above facts, learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2016 deleted the name of Sh. Hira Singh from the array of parties. His legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record as respondents No. 1(i) to 1 (vi). They were served and represented by their learned counsel before the learned Tribunal. The matter was heard by learned Tribunal. Vide award dated 15.07.2021, the claim petition was partly allowed. The claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by the Insurer (present respondent No.1) to the claimants, who was given the right to recover the amount from “respondent No.1”. 2(iv). The Insurer (present respondent No.1) moved an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for executing/recovery of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. In this application, legal heirs of Hira Singh i.e. Smt. Nomi Devi, Smt. Durga Devi wives of late Sh. Hira Singh, Miss. Nisha, Ms. Sanjana, Miss. Kajal, daughters of late Sh. Hira Singh and Master Nitin S/o of late Sh. In this application, legal heirs of Hira Singh i.e. Smt. Nomi Devi, Smt. Durga Devi wives of late Sh. Hira Singh, Miss. Nisha, Ms. Sanjana, Miss. Kajal, daughters of late Sh. Hira Singh and Master Nitin S/o of late Sh. Hira Singh were impleaded as judgment debtors [petitioner herein & respondents No.1(i) to 1(vi) in the claim petition]. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 27.09.2022 ordered for issuance of certificate of realization under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The directions were issued to the concerned District Collector to realize the amount involved from the movable and immovable property of the judgment debtors as arrears of land revenue. On the basis of this order, further proceedings were started by the revenue agency for recovery of the amount. The auction notice was issued by Naib Tehsildar Settlement, Circle Shillai District Sirmaur on 29.12.2022. 2(v) In the aforesaid factual background, the judgment debtors have invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for following substantive reliefs:- “a) The order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-II, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. may kindly be quashed and set aside as the same has been passed against the respondents on the basis of award (Annexure P-1) which is nullity in the eyes of law. b) The certificate under Section 174 of M.V. Act issued by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-II, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (Annexure P-3) vide dated 11.10.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside. c) The auction notice dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Tehsildar Settlement Shillai may kindly be quashed and set aside in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. Leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Hira Singh, contended that the claim petition was instituted against a dead person i.e. Sh. Hira Singh, therefore, the claim petition also not maintainable. The award was illegal & had no sanctity in the eyes of law. Proceedings initiated under Section 174 of the Act on the basis of illegal award were a nullity. Therefore, certificate issued under Section 174 of the Act was not valid. There was no direction in the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the legal heirs of deceased late Sh. Hira Singh. Proceedings initiated under Section 174 of the Act on the basis of illegal award were a nullity. Therefore, certificate issued under Section 174 of the Act was not valid. There was no direction in the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the legal heirs of deceased late Sh. Hira Singh. The direction in the award was only against Sh. Hira Singh (deceased). The Insurer was permitted to recover the amount of compensation from a dead person. Since the petitioners were not aggrieved against the direction issued by the learned Tribunal, therefore, there was no occasion for them to raise any objection before the learned Executing Court or before the Revenue Authorities in respect of execution of the award against them. 4. Since the arguments being raised for the petitioners revolve around the operative part of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it will be apt to extract the said operative part as under:- “28. In view of my findings recorded on the foregoing issues No. 1 to 7 above, the petition is partly allowed with costs and the petitioners are held entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petitioner till realization thereof. The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned by the petitioners in equal share. The amount of compensation shall be paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioners and shall have right to recover the amount from the respondent No.1.” After having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and on considering the case record, my observations are as under:- 4(i) No doubt, the record shows that Sh. Hira Singh was originally impleaded in the claim petition as respondent No.1-the owner of the vehicle in question. The accident, involving the vehicle took place on 27.05.2014. Sh. Hira Singh had died on 01.02.2013. However, a perusal of award dated 15.07.2021 shows that learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2016 had ordered for deletion of name of Sh. Hira Singh (deceased) from the array of parties. The legal heirs of Sh. Hira Singh were brought on record of the claim petition as respondents No. 1(i) to 1(vi) (present petitioners). They were duly represented in the claim petition by their learned counsel. They (petitioners herein) contested the claim petition. No such objection was taken by the legal heirs of deceased Sh. The legal heirs of Sh. Hira Singh were brought on record of the claim petition as respondents No. 1(i) to 1(vi) (present petitioners). They were duly represented in the claim petition by their learned counsel. They (petitioners herein) contested the claim petition. No such objection was taken by the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Hira Singh (petitioner herein) that the claim petition was not maintainable having been filed against a dead person. Be that as it may. Validity of the award or maintainability of the claim petition cannot be gone into in the instant case. Present is also not an appeal against the award. 4(ii) Vide award dated 15.07.2021, learned Tribunal had allowed compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The amount of compensation was to be paid by the insurer, who was given the right to recover the same. While giving the right to recover the amount, the word used in the impugned award is “respondent No.1”. Prima facie, this appears to be a typographical error as name of respondent No.1 stood already deleted from the array of parties. Name of respondent No.1 was replaced with that of his legal heirs i.e. respondents No.1(i) to 1(vi) (petitioners herein). The petitioners were very well aware of the fact that they had stepped into the shoes of original respondent No.1. They had contested the claim petition & were represented by their learned counsel. In case, according to the petitioners, claim petition was not maintainable or award was illegal, it is for them to take recourse to appropriate remedy. Neither there is any challenge to the maintainability of claim petition nor to the validity of award nor these aspects can be gone into in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly petitioners have not filed any objection in proceedings instituted by the Insurer under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Executing Court wherein they have been impleaded as judgment debtors. It is only in the present petition, the petitioners contend that in the operative part of the award (now being enforced by the insurer), the insurer was permitted to recover the compensation amount from respondent No.1, whereas they are legal heirs of respondent No.1 & therefore not liable to satisfy the award. It is only in the present petition, the petitioners contend that in the operative part of the award (now being enforced by the insurer), the insurer was permitted to recover the compensation amount from respondent No.1, whereas they are legal heirs of respondent No.1 & therefore not liable to satisfy the award. Though the fact remains that name of respondent No.1 stood deleted from the array of parties in the claim case and present petitioners were brought on record as respondents No.1(i) to 1(vi), nonetheless it is for the petitioners to file their objections, if any, to the enforcement of the award against them. In the given facts of the case, without petitioners’ filing any objections to proceedings initiated against them by respondent No.1-insurer under Section 174 of the Act, they cannot be heard to complain that they could not be proceeded against in such proceedings especially when they were impleaded as respondents No.1(i) to (vi) i.e. legal heirs of deceased Hira Singh. Accordingly, I find no merit in instant petition and the same is dismissed. It goes without saying that it is for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of their grievances. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.