(1.) (Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, thereby rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner in the execution application. The brief facts of the present case are that vide order dated 05.03.2001, passed by Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act, Pushpa Devi was awarded compensation. No compensation was ever awarded in favour of the petitioner herein. Not only this, even in the appeal, Pushpa Devi was found to be entitled for the compensation. In the execution application, being moved by Pushpa Devi Decree-holder to recover the compensation amount, petitioner filed objection saying that he is entitled to 1/6th share in the compensation. Objection of the petitioner herein was dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.09.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a civil suit had already been filed by the petitioner claiming himself entitled to 1/6th compensation awarded in favour of Pushpa Devi. Learned counsel further states that Civil Court has already granted interim injunction against the Land Acquisition Collector not to release 1/6th compensation in favour of Pushpa Devi. Learned counsel further states that despite of injunction order being passed by the Civil Court, the Executing Court has rejected objection thereby making way for Pushpa Devi to withdraw entire amount and making the injunction order passed by Civil Court infructuous. Admittedly, compensation was awarded in favour of Pushpa Devi. Neither the Land Acquisition Officer nor Reference Court nor Appellate Court ever found petitioner entitled for the compensation. That being so, Pushpa Devi seems to be the only person entitled for the compensation. Since the alleged right of the petitioner is subjudice before the Civil Court, hence, order passed by the Executing Court impugned herein does not require any interference. However, it is made clear if petitioner wants to move appropriate application before the Civil Court against Pushpa Devi for security/surety or for attachment of the property, petitioner shall be at liberty. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed.