IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6174 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 State of Haryana ....Petitioner Versus Satish Kumar Gautam and Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana. * * * SABINA,J.(Oral) State of Haryana has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders dated 02.05.1999(Annexure P-5), 16.5.2009 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P-11). During the course of arguments, learned State counsel has submitted that D.R.Kairon, Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula could not appear before the Court on 25.09.2009 as he was under the impression that a draft had already been sent in compliance of his statement dated 09.09.2009 and hence, notice issued to him as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him,was liable to be set aside. On 09.09.2009, D.R.Kairon, Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula appeared before the executing court and made the following statement: "Stated that payment of Rs.6,08,589/- + Rs.1,48,549/- is yet to be made by HUDA Department and I undertake to make payment in the case within 15 days failing which I shall appear before the court on 25.09.2009." However he failed to appear before the Court on 25.09.2009 and a draft of Civil Revision No.6174 of 2009(O&M) ..2.. only Rs.3,61,566/- was placed on record. The said amount was not in consonance with the statement made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 09.09.2009. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to appear before the executing Court on 25.09.2009 and explain as to why the entire payment was not being made and only a draft of Rs.3,61,566/- had been deposited. Moreover, vide the impugned order only a show cause notice has been issued to the Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him and referred to this Court in violation of the undertaking given by him on 09.09.2009. The executing Court will consider the reply furnished by the Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula and passed appropriate order in accordance with law. Hence at this stage, no ground for interferrence by this Court is called for. A perusal of the order Annexure P-5 reveals that Accounts Officer had submitted the report and calculations made by the Land Acquisition Officer had been challenged. Objections against the report were filed by the decree holder. Vide this order, the decree holder was directed to furnish calculations in accordance with the Apex Court ruling. Vide order Annexure P-7, the decree holder was directed to furnish the list of property of Judgment Debtors within 3 days and thereafter, warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued as the requisite payment had not been made by the State. The learned State counsel has failed to point out any error in the said orders. In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed. 27.10.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge