C.R. No. 2504 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2504 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.5.2009 Mohd. Akbar Noor Kashmiri ....Petitioner Versus Ajit Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Gurdev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.2.2009 passed by learned Court below whereby the objections filed by the petitioner in execution of a decree dated January 22,1980 were dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction in the decree passed was that the tube well which was existed in Khasra Nos. 1/24/2 or 1/24/4 was to be shifted. However, that tube well is not located in the aforesaid khasra number as it is in different khasra number, which is in the ownership of the petitioner. The submission is that Court below has not done any exercise to get the land demarcated to locate the exact Khasra number in which the tube well is located. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. A perusal of decree dated 22.1.1980 passed in earlier suit filed by respondent Ajit Singh against the petitioner shows that the same was decided on joint statement of the parties. It was mentioned therein that in case the revision filed by the petitioner which was pending before the Additional Directorate Consolidation is decided in his favour and in those proceedings he gets either Khasra Nos. 1/24/2 or 1/24/4 in which the tube well is admitted to be situated, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 shall stand dismissed as infructuous and in case the petitioner/defendant fails in those C.R. No. 2504 of 2009 (O&M) 2 proceedings and the aforesaid khasra numbers are not given to him, the suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff shall stand decreed and the petitioner therein was to remove the tube well from this land without any objection, within a period of two months from the date of order in the proceedings before the Additional Directorate Consolidation. It is not in dispute that the petition filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, by the petitioner before the Additional Directorate Consolidation was dismissed on January 28, 1981 as he had refused to interfere. Once that was so, the conditional decree passed in favour of respondent No.1 on January 22, 1980 came into operation. The petitioner was further estopped from raising the dispute regarding the location of the Tube well in any subsequent proceedings as in the statement which was made before the Civil Court at the time of disposal of the earlier suit it was admtited that the tube well was situated in Khasra Nos. 1/24/2 or 1/24/4. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 15.5.2009 JUDGE Reema