Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49327 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 35 of 2025 Revisionist :- Smt. Maya Devi And Ors. Opposite Party :- Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Authority And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Prabhat Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amardeep Yadav,Radhika Singh,Richa Mishra,Vijay Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Radhika Singh, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.4 and Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties no.5 to 8. The Vakalatnamas are taken on record. 2. The present civil revision has been filed by the revisionists challenging the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Lucknow, opposite party no.1 whereby, the objection filed under Section 47 of C.P.C. by the revisionists came to be dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that an award was passed in respect of acquisition of land owned by the father of the revisionists as well as the opposite parties no.4. The other part of the property was owned by the predecessor in interest of opposite party no.5 to 8. The entire land was acquired by means of a common award. The said award was challenged to the reference court under Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. During the pendency of the said reference, the opposite party no.4 herein moved an application for substitution as the father of the opposite party no.4, namely, Ram Ashray died. The said substitution was made on the basis of a registered will claimed by the opposite party no.4. The said substitution application was allowed and the reference court decided the matter finally by means of the judgment dated 20.01.2024. Subsequently thereto, the amount as awarded by the reference court was put to execution. In the said execution proceedings, the revisionists, who are the daughters of late Ram Ashray filed objection under Section 47 of C.P.C. claiming that they were not impleaded when the reference matter was decided and thus their rights are adversely affected. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.06.2025 mainly on the ground that the executing court cannot go behind the decree which is sought to be enforced in the execution proceedings. The liberty was also granted to the revisionists to file an appropriate application under Section 146 of C.P.C. which could be considered in accordance with law. 4. A perusal of the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which the land was acquired, prescribed for manner of apportionment of compensation in Part-IV of the said Act. Subsequently, after repeal, all the proceedings have to be undertaken in terms of the prescriptions contained in the Act of 2013. Chapter-IX of the said Act of 2013, prescribes for manner of apportionment of compensation in between the beneficiaries. Mandate of Chapter-VIII, particularly Sections 63 and 64, prescribes that the jurisdiction of the civil courts are barred and all the issues with regard to the amount to be awarded, the apportionment of compensation and the allied issue are to be decided by the reference court under Section 64 of 2013 Act. 5. In the present case, no such application was filed by the revisionists before the reference court which led to culmination of proceedings after hearing the opposite party no.4 as legal heirs of Ram Ashray. 6. Clearly the remedy of the revisionists are to move an appropriate application before the reference court highlighting their claims, that not being done, the remedy of filing an application under Section 47, was rightly rejected by the trial court. 7. The revisionists would be at liberty to take such steps as may be advised under law to protect their interest. 8. It is further clarified that insofar as the award against the respondent no.5 to 8 is concerned, there is no dispute, thus the execution court is directed to execute the award insofar as the respondents no.5 to 8. 9. In case, no application is filed filed by the revisionists within a period of one months from today, the award in question shall be executed in respect of the benefits that flow in favour of the opposite party no.4 also. 10. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench