ORDER : DEVAN M. DESAI, J. Learned AGP, Mr. Shivam Parikh, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 1. The present Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 wherein the petitioners pray for the following reliefs: “A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application. B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Executing Court below Exh. 1 and Exh. 9, dated 07.11.2025, in Special Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, at Annexure ‘A’ to the present petition, by way of issuing suitable wait, order, direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation, and operation of the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Executing Court below Exh. 1 and Exh. 9, dated 07.11.2025, in Special Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, at Annexure ‘A’ to the present petition, by way of issuing suitable writ, order, or direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to make payment of amounts of shortfall towards statutory benefits to the petitioner, as per the prayer made in the Execution Application at Exh. 1 with calculation sheet, Annexure ‘C’ to the petition, by way of issuing suitable writ, order, or direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. E) This Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent No. 2 to make payment of amounts to the petitioners, towards statutory benefits as prayed in Exh. 1, Annexure ‘C’, with interest at the rate of 12% from the date 02.12.2013 till the actual amount is paid or deposited by the respondent No. 2, by way of issuing suitable order or direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. F) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant interim relief in terms of prayer 10(C), in the interest of justice. G) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further order/s as deemed fit, just, and proper by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. K.M. Sheth for the petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Shivam Parikh for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. G) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further order/s as deemed fit, just, and proper by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. K.M. Sheth for the petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Shivam Parikh for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Land Acquisition Authority initiated acquisition proceedings for the land of the petitioners. The Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was assailed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”) before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court, in a group of LAR case Nos. 47 to 52 of 2012, awarded additional compensation in favour of the claimants. As the amount of compensation was not deposited by the respondents herein, the claimants were constrained to file Execution Application before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana, being Special Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025. It is contended that the respondents herein, have filed reply at Exhibit – 9 and also submitted a calculation sheet, wherein patent errors in the calculation of interest were committed. The said errors were brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court. However, instead of considering the apparent errors in the calculation of compensation, the learned Executing Court directed the present petitioners to file a fresh application and disposed of the Execution Petition. It is contended that the learned Executing Court has committed patent illegality in disposing of the Execution Petition. It is contended that the claimants have lost their valuable lands pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and, till date, have been deprived of the compensation already awarded by the learned Reference Court. It is contended that the learned Executing Court, in the impugned order, has observed that the learned advocate for the original opponents had fairly admitted that the remaining amount, as mentioned in Exhibit – 1, i.e., the Execution Petition, would be paid within a period of two to three months. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and that the learned Executing Court be directed to decide the Execution Petition on merits. Except above, no other submissions were canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioners. 4. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and that the learned Executing Court be directed to decide the Execution Petition on merits. Except above, no other submissions were canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondents, upon instructions, has submitted that the respondents have no objection if the matter is remanded back to learned Executing Court for recalculation of the compensation as claimed in the Execution Petition. Except above, no other submissions were canvassed by learned AGP for the respondents. 5. I have considered the averments made in the Petition, as well as, upon perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the petitioners herein have claimed an amount of Rs.8,54,639/- from the present respondents pursuant to the order passed by the learned Reference Court in the Reference Proceedings. However, on perusal of the reply, Exhibit – 9, and the calculation sheet produced by the original opponents before the learned Executing Court, it is evident that under Sub-clause (3) of Clause (10), the rise at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act is assessed at Rs.1,63,205/-. However, the period mentioned in the calculation sheet is from 19.07.2007 to 16.07.2010. There is an apparent error in the calculation of the months. Instead of 24 months, it should have been 36 months. Similarly, under Sub-clause (1) of Clause (11) of the calculation sheet, interest for the first year from the date of possession at the rate of 9% per annum has been calculated at Rs.79,563/- for the period from 08.11.2006 to 07.11.2007 on the compensation amount of Rs.10,47,234/-. There is a clear mathematical error in the said calculation. Similarly, in Sub-clause (2) of Clause (11), there is also an apparent error in the calculation of interest. 6. The record, in clear terms, shows that there are serious calculation errors that has deprived the claimants from receiving their rightful compensation even after losing their valuable lands. Moreover, learned AGP has fairly contended that there are apparent errors in the calculation sheet annexed to the reply, Exhibit – 9. 7. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court in Special Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025 is hereby, quashed and set aside. Moreover, learned AGP has fairly contended that there are apparent errors in the calculation sheet annexed to the reply, Exhibit – 9. 7. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court in Special Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025 is hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana. The learned Executing Court is directed to decide the Execution Petition on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is further directed that the original opponents shall not seek for unnecessary adjournments on any administrative grounds. The present Petition stands disposed of as allowed.