C.R. No.3226 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3226 of 2006 Date of Decision.04.10.2011 Lal Chand son of Shri Aad Ram son of Sunda resident of village Daryapur, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R) Circle Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and others .....Respondents Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. The case is of the year 2006 and it is specifically brought before this Court under the order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for quick disposal, having identified the same as a civil revision against interim order passed in decree. I have, therefore, hastened to dispose of the case on the basis of records although there is no representation on both sides. 2. The civil revision arises out of proceedings taken by means of an objection by the judgment debtor-State of Haryana contending that the execution petition was not maintainable since the decree had been fully satisfied. The contention by the State was that the Government was required to pay a compensation only for 2.14 acres of land that had been acquired for laying a road but the execution petition had been filed, as though the Government had acquired 4.01 acres and that the compensation already paid was only in respect of 2.14 acres and for the C.R. No.3226 of 2006 -2- balance of extent, the decree-holder was still entitled to recover the amount. 3. The Executing Court rejected the objection taken by the judgment debtor and held that the actual properties that had been acquired were found in Khasra No.471//2 (6 bigha 11 biswas), 12/2 (8 Bigha 8 Biswas) and 18/2(4 bighas 12 biswas) totalling an extent of 4.01 acres only and therefore, the amount that had been paid already by the judgment-debtor was only in respect of 2.14 acres. Consequently, it held that the decree-holders were entitled to recover the remaining amount. The objection taken by the judgment debtor was, therefore, held to be not tenable and it proceeded to dismiss the objection. Strangely, I find that an appeal had been filed against the order of the Executing Court to the District Judge, Bhiwani in Misc. Civil Appeal No.249 of 2004. If the objection taken by the judgment debtor were to be taken as an application filed under Section 47 CPC that the decree had already been executed and there was no further execution leviable then the order passed under Section 47 CPC could not be appealable under any of the provisions of Order 43 and only revision could have been possible. It could not have been construed as a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC since the case did not involve the issue of objection to delivery of property but the issue was only payment of money. The appeal before the District Judge itself was not competent. 4. When the Appellate Court has disposed of the case, the District Court has held that the award had referred only to 2.14 acres and even the compensation that had been fixed at Rs.4,12,961/- was referable only to 2.14 acres and the Government cannot be compelled to acquire a C.R. No.3226 of 2006 -3- larger extent than what it deemed necessary. According to the Appellate Court, therefore, there was no scope for decree-holder to complain that the decree had still not been satisfied and it was an act of dishonesty that had prompted the decree holders to further levy an execution. 5. One of the decree holders is in revision against the order of the District Judge. The facts elicited in the grounds reveal that execution petition itself has been brought in a decree that was obtained for a mandatory relief of paying compensation for a property acquired by the Government. The decree seems strange having regard to the finality of the issues covered under the Collector's award as regards the extent of land acquired and the compensation assessed, in terms of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is seen from the pleadings that even in the suit, the Government appears to have taken a plea that the property had been handed over by villagers for laying a road voluntarily and no compensation was possible at all. The Civil Court decree appears to have rejected this contention and it awarded compensation. The Government appears to have preferred an appeal against the judgment before the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani but the same was also dismissed on 27.04.1998. The judgment appears to have become final. It will be futile to raise the issue of the validity of decree, although I have my reservation about how a suit came to be instituted for claiming compensation for the land acquired without reference to the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act itself. Taking the decree to be executed as it is, the point would still be to examine what the decree provided for. I have no assistance from the parties to C.R. No.3226 of 2006 -4- undertake such an exercise and since I am of the view that the jurisdiction exercised by the District Judge in appeal against the order passed by the Executing Court was clearly wrong, I would set aside the order but I cannot still allow the first order of the Executing Court to remain without a proper enquiry further. While setting aside the order of the District Court, I remit the matter to the Executing Court again to consider the following:- (1) To elicit from the decree and the plaint averments as to what the plaintiff's complaint was. Were they asking for compensation for 4.01 acres or for only 2.14 acres? (2) Was the compensation determined by the Court referable to the extent of 2.14 acres or 4.01 acres? (3) For the amount of compensation of Rs.4,12,961/- paid by the Government, was full satisfaction recorded under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 or not? 6. The answer to these questions, I would believe would determine the issue of whether the decree has still remained unexecuted and whether the objections of the judgment debtor, namely the State of Haryana were tenable or not? Any order passed shall become final subject only to the power of revision under Section 115 and shall not be appealable before the District Court as was originally done before. 7. The civil revision is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 04, 2011 Pankaj*