ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. Anju Arora, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation. Also heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4. 2. In this case, notice was issued on 27.01.2023 with the following order:- "Issue Notice, returnable in four weeks. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent Nos 1 to 4. Notice be issued to the unrepresented respondents i.e., respondent Nos. 5 to 9. We have been informed that since after passing of the impugned judgment by the High Court, the award in question has been put to execution and the entire sum of money payable thereunder has been recovered, which is available with the Tribunal but, has not been disbursed as yet. We have taken note of the questions sought to be raised in this matter by the petitioner, essentially questioning its liability, as also the totality of circumstances and the propositions of disbursement, as contained in paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 of the award impugned. The Tribunal has provided for disbursement, inter alia, as follows: "23. As a sequel of above discussion and decision on issues, the claim petition is partly allowed with costs and compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,44,160/- is hereby awarded to claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. Claimants are held entitled to the amount of compensation in the following manner :- Awarded amount 1. Claimant No.1 : 50% 2. Claimant No.2 : 30% 3. Claimant No.3 & 4 : 10% each 24. Respondents No.4(a) being the principle and 4(b) being the agent of respondent No.4(a) are equally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. However, the amount of the shares of minor claimant shall be kept deposited in the shape of FDRs in some Nationalized Bank, so that he will be entitled to receive the same on attaining the age of majority without any further court order. However, the amount of the shares of minor claimant shall be kept deposited in the shape of FDRs in some Nationalized Bank, so that he will be entitled to receive the same on attaining the age of majority without any further court order. However, claimant No.1 shall be entitled to receive interest for upkeeping of the minor till the attaining of age of majority." Taking the totality of circumstances into account, it is considered appropriate and hence ordered that while the disbursement shall be carried out in accordance with the award in question but then, so far claimant No.1 is concerned, half of the 50% of the amount to be disbursed to her, i.e., 25% of the awarded amount, shall be placed in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank and the remaining 25% of the awarded amount may be transferred to her bank account. The amount to be kept in FDRs, i.e., 25% of the awarded amount qua the claimant No. 1, as also 30% of the awarded amount for the minor claimant, i.e., claimant No.2 shall continue to remain in fixed deposit until further orders of this Court, but the claimant No.1 shall be entitled to receive the interest accruing thereupon. The Tribunal to carry out disbursement in terms of paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the impugned award read with the directions hereinabove. It goes without saying that the disbursement shall remain subject to the final orders to be passed by this Court in this matter." 3. In course of her submission, Ms. Arora would point out that the Corporation should not be fastened with any liability towards the claim raised by the respondents, as they had entered into the sale agreement for sale of the standing trees, with M/s J.S. Constructions. Accordingly, it is argued that if any accident had occurred on account of the steps taken by M/s J.S. Constructions to cut and remove the standing trees, the liability should not be fastened on the petitioner-corporation. 4. Responding to the above contention, Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the claimants refers to the terms of the agreement dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure-P1) and also the agreement dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-P2) to argue that in the event of Corporation being burdened with any liability to pay compensation, the same will be the responsibility of the purchaser i.e. M/s J.S. Constructions. 4. Responding to the above contention, Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the claimants refers to the terms of the agreement dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure-P1) and also the agreement dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-P2) to argue that in the event of Corporation being burdened with any liability to pay compensation, the same will be the responsibility of the purchaser i.e. M/s J.S. Constructions. In other words, if the Corporation is fastened with any compensation liability, the same shall be indemnified by the purchaser. It is then pointed out by Mr. Kapoor that as the money has been remitted by the Corporation, the Corporation is at liberty to recover the said amount in terms of Clause 24, from M/s J.S. Constructions (purchaser). 5. Having considered the terms of the agreement between the Corporation and the purchaser, we are of the view that interference with the award and the judgment of the High Court is not called for. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner-Corporation to recover from the purchaser the compensation paid to the claimants, in terms of the Clause 24 of the agreement dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure-P1) and agreement dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-P2). 6. The I.A. No.31347 of 2024 for refund of security, is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.