Civil Revision No.290 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.290 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 17, 2011 Kuldip Singh .....Petitioner v. Gurjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Shivoy Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.1199-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.290 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 3.6.2010, passed by learned Executing Court, i.e., Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ropar, vide which objections filed by present petitioner-objector were dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-objector and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ropar. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of decision of present revision petition are that an award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, was passed against Sukhwinder Singh. In execution of the said award, land belonging to Sukhwinder Singh was attached by the Court. However, without satisfying the claim of the persons in whose favour the award was passed, i.e., the present respondent-decree-holders, Sukhwinder Singh entered into an agreement to sell the land with present petitioner- objector. The award of MACT, Ropar, is dated 6.1.2009. After passing of the award, Sukhwinder Singh agreed to sell the land vide agreement dated Civil Revision No.290 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 14.1.2009 just to frustrate the execution of the award. Learned trial Court dismissed the objections of present revision-petitioner by observing as under:- “ A claim petition filed by Ajinder Kaur and others against Sukhwinder Singh and others was allowed vide award dated 6.1.2009 by the learned MACT Ropar. After passing the award against Sukhwinder Singh, he agreed to sell the land vide agreement dated 14.1.2009 with the present objector. Decree- holder moved an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for sending a certificate to the collector Nawanshahr for recovery of the amount due as the arrears of the land revenue. When the JD failed to make the payment then the concerned authority attached the land of the JD for recovery of the award amount towards arrears of land revenue. Now the contention of learned counsel for the objector that the land in question has been illegally attached so the same be released, cannot be accepted because the JD has failed to make the payment of the award amount and the same is being recovered as the arrears of land revenue. The land in question has been attached as per provisions of law. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for objector that the land in question has been illegally attached by the concerned authority cannot be accepted. They are recovering the amount of award as arrears of land revenue as per provision of law. If there is any alleged agreement executed by the JD in favour of the objector qua the land, it has no effect because the same has been procured by the parties in order to defeat the rights of the decree-holder. The objector cannot take the benefit on the basis of the alleged agreement which has been prepared by the JD in order to play fraud with the Court in order to avoid the liability of paying the amount of the award. In view of my above discussion, the objections filed by the objector, being without any merits, stand dismissed.” Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot Civil Revision No.290 of 2011 (O&M) -3- be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court, i.e., Additional District Judge, Ropar, in dismissing the objections filed by present revision petitioner or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 17.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge