Civil Revision No.1540 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1540 of 1999 Date of decision 19.01.2009 Kuldip Singh .....Appellant versus Union Territory and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the respondents. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The revision petition is directed against the order in execution rejecting an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC that the decree that issued an injunction had been violated. 2. It bears out in record that earlier, the revision petitioner had filed an application for disobedience of order and the Court had disposed of the application, giving him the liberty to approach the Execution Court. Before the Execution Court, the respondent-Chandigarh Administration contended that the property had been actually acquired and action had also been taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and property had also been taken possession of. 3. It is too well settled a proposition that if a property is acquired by the Government in its eminent domain, the validity of acquisition could not be challenged in collateral proceedings and the remedy of a person who claims that the acquisition had not been carried out by following the due procedures, could have his remedy elsewhere but not before an Executing Court to contend that he had been dispossessed otherwise by due process of Civil Revision No.1540 of 1999 -2- law. 4. As a matter of fact, the Executing Court had considered the fact that the nature of relief that could be granted under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was either to order arrest of the judgement debtor or attachment of his properties. A person who pleads dispossession could have no cause for obtaining reentry into possession through execution process in a decree for injunction. 5. In this case, it is pointed out by the judgement debtor that there had already been action under the Land Acquisition Act and orders of eviction had been carried through with the help of the Estate Officer. The decree-holder who had earlier obtained a decree for injunction against public authority from interfering with possession except by due process of law, has already itself worked out. The due process of law that the decree contemplates is a procedure under which judgment debtor could have validly been dispossessed. The dispossession purported to have been carried out by the Administration is pursuant to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and under the Public Premises Eviction of Uunauthorised Occupants Act. The only remedies for the petition would be under the respective enactments themselves. The application before the Executing Court is clearly misconceived and no exception could be taken to the order which was passed by the executing Court. The Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 19.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL