G.K. Misra, C.J.
1. In Arbitration Case No. 94 of 1962 pending before the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation, Sambalpur (hereinafter to be referred to as the Arbitrator) the following order was passed on 10-5-1965:--
'Accordingly the claim made by the O. P. 2(a) appears to be a reasonable claim. I thus hold that the O. P. 2(a) should get as compensation for the acquired raiyati land a sum equal to the money value of 16 times the net annual yield of the acquired land. In the absence of any evidence from either side about the actual yield of the land, I leave the actual work of calculating the net yield of the land to be done by the L. A. O. on the basis of the results of crop cutting experiments as recorded in the Hamid Settlement Report.'
On 19-9-1970 the Land Acquisition officer made the calculation and determined that payments would be made at the rate of Rs. 6.40 per maund of paddy. The amount payable thus came to Rs. 3676.51. Payment of this amount was accepted by the appellant on 22-9-1970. Subsequently the appellant discovered that he ought to have got payment at the rate of Rs. 9.56 per maund of paddy and on that basis a further amount of Rupees 2131.36 was payable to him. He made several applications to the Land Acquisition Officer with no response. Thereafter he filed Execution Case No. 4 of 1973 on 19-2-1973 for payment of the- additional claim. The execution case was dismissed on 15-10-1973 by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that once having accepted the amount offered, further claim to the additional amount was not tenable. Against this order Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1974 was filed which was dismissed by our learned brother Panda, J. on 21-3-1974. The entire ojder is to the effect :--
'Heard. The appeal is mot maintainable. Hence it is dismissed.'
It is against this order that the A. H. O. has been filed.
2. Against the order passed in the execution case, the appeal was maintainable under Section 47, Civil P. C. and Panda, J. acted contrary to law in saying that the appeal was not maintainable.
3. The short question for consideration is whether the execution case itself is maintainable. From the facts already narrated it would be clear that the order of the Arbitrator was to be worked out for quantification by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant is aggrieved by the incorrect quantification made by the Land Acquisition Officer on the wrong basis that the price of paddy was Rs. 6.40 per maund and not Rs. 9.56. If the appellant was aggrieved by that order, two courses were open to him (1) to file a writ application in the HighCourt under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution for directing the Land Acquisition Officer to act in accordance with the direction given by the Arbitrator, and (2) to approach the Arbitrator and get an order from him that the calculation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was in direct contravention of his order. We express no opinion as to what course the appellant should have adopted. But one thing is clear that no execution lies for enforcement of the residual claim. There must be a valid decree to be executed as the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Here the award passed by the Arbitrator read with the ultimate quantification arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer constituted the decree and as it stood there was no scope for the additional amount to be claimed. The executing court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant the residual claim even if the Land Acquisition Officer acted, contrary to law in not calculating at the rate of Rs. 9.56 per maund. We, however, make it clear that we do not express any view whether the price of paddy should have been calculated at the rate of Rs. 6.40 or Rs. 9.56 per maund. We are on the short question whether the executing court having jurisdiction to execute the award failed to exercise that jurisdiction. We are satisfied that the executing court rightly dismissed the execution case though the reasons given by him may not be supported.
4. In this view of the matter, the appeal before the learned Single Judge was maintainable, but on merits it must be dismissed as the executing court itself had no jurisdiction to execute the higher claim for which there is no award.
5. In the result, the A. H. O. fails. But in the circumstances parties would bear their own costs throughout
P.K. Mohanti, J.
6. I agree.