M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of CPC, is filed questioning the Order in E.P.No.50 of 2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, to attach of the immovable properties of the petitioner shown in the schedule and for realization of the Award amount of Rs.4,63,00,000/-.

2. The respondent herein/DHR filed Execution Petition under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of CPC for attachment of schedule property of the petitioner herein/J.Dr and sell the same for realization of the debt due under the Award of Conciliator dt. 17.05.2017, duly signed by Solomon D.B. Chenji, Conciliator, Deputy Legal Adviser and Head of Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Bangulur.

3. The Conciliator by name Sri Soloman DB Chenji passed the Award by settling the dispute, against the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor, to pay an amount of Rs.4,63,00,000/- to the respondent/D.Hr within a period of 90 days from the date of settlement and directed the petitioner herein to release a sum of Rs.75 lakhs together with a sum of Rs.16.40 lakhs and the said amounts were released and the balance amount was required to be approved and accepted by the competent authority of the petitioner herein/J.Dr. The petitioner/J.Dr mainly contended that the respondent/DHr agreed for the Award subject to acceptance by competent authority of the J.Dr and without waiting for the acceptance and approval of the competent higher authorities of the J.Dr, the Respondent/D.Hr initiated legal proceedings by issuing legal notice dt.21.11.2017 and filed the Execution Petition against the petitioner/J.Dr.

4. Even according to Section 74 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it has not reached finality and the competent authority not having accepted the settlement, the respondent initiated the proceedings, as per the Conciliation Award and the Execution Petition is premature.

5. It is further contended that the Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS) is an autonomous body, which provides tsunami early warning to India and 24 countries on Indian ocean rim round the clock. The respondent/DHR attached the schedule property which may lead to closure of the institution and there is heavy risk and loss to the nation and other countries and thereby running of institution and operate the same from the property sought to be attached by the respondent is only a centre to receive communication from satellite and closing the institution in the present premises by shifting to other place shall also not be possible for various reasons, as such opposed the petition for attachment of the property of this Petitioner/JDR on the above grounds.

6. Upon hearing both the counsel, the Executing Court passed the Order which is impugned in this Revision, ordering attachment of the schedule mentioned property under Order XXI Rules 54 CPC.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the present revision is filed on various grounds, mainly on the ground that the Conciliation Award was passed subject to the appetence/approval by higher authorities and the same cannot be equated with the settlement agreed in terms of Section 73 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and without approaching the Civil Court to make the Award as decree, the Execution Court will not have any jurisdiction to proceed under Order XXI Rules 54,64 and 66 of CPC to attach, proclaim and sell the property. Therefore, when the Award is not enforceable as on the date, since, it was not approved by the Higher Authorities of the petitioner/J.Dr, passing an Order under Order XXI Rule 54 is an illegality, committed by the Executing Court.

8. It is further contended that the Conciliation Award is subject to acceptance/approval by the higher authorities, unless, the Conciliation Award was accepted and referred to a Court to make the Award as decree, it is not executable, invoking Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the E