Civil Revision No.3030 of 2002 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: April 23, 2008 Ajit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Ram Singh & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate and Mr.Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner even after obtaining decree in his favour long ago is still contesting to stay possession and encroachment of his property at the hands of the respondents. The petitioner, who is a decree-holder, has filed execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC to which the Judgment Debtor-respondents have filed objections. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioner wants to grab the property belonging to them bearing khasra No.388/1. Civil Revision No.3030 of 2002 : 2 : According to the respondents, this khasra number lies towards southern side of the property of khasra No.1264/1, which is owned by petitioner-decree holder. Claiming that they had constructed a poultry farm and some other rooms, it is stated that entire khasra No.388/1 is actually in the ownership of Municipal Council, which has constructed a metalled road leading to division of the said khasra number into two parts. It is then mentioned that southern part of said khasra number measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas lies on one side of the road, while other part of this khasra number measuring 9 marlas lies towards the north side of the road. As per the respondents, this part is towards the south of khasra No.1264/1. In this background, it is claimed that petitioner is trying to encroach upon this khasra No.388/1(0-9) under the garb of his decree dated 8.1.1996. The respondents further submitted that the boundaries mentioned in application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC are wrong. Plea further is that suit against respondent No.11 was dismissed but said decree was not passed against respondent Nos.3 to 11 and, thus, they are not bound by the decree. The petitioner-decree holder, however, has claimed that respondents have disobeyed the orders passed by the court and have violated the orders in order to grab the suit property comprised in khasra No.1264/1(2-9). Petitioner has further denied that khasra No.388/1 is under the possession of the respondents. He has also disclosed that petitioner was given injuries in order to dispossess him and even a case was registered against them of which they could save themselves by exerting political influence. Having considered Civil Revision No.3030 of 2002 : 3 : the rival contentions, the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the present application is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to plead the factum of encroachment or construction over the said khasra number. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the respondents has moved an application for placing on record some additional documents, which is allowed. The counsel for the respondents would refer to Annexure R-4, now placed on record, to show that the petitioner has sold 6/49 shares of area in favour of one Deepak Kumar and refers to mutation in this regard as noted in the remarks column of copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97. The counsel, however, could not point out either from record or documents as to what is the date of this sale to which this mutation pertains. If it is prior to the decree, then obviously it would not have any effect. The counsel for the parties were otherwise in serious dispute in regard to the physical location of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the judgment would point out that the petitioner has sold part of his property from khasra No.1264/1 and thus is seeking to have that part of share after demarcation from the land of the respondents from khasra No.388/1. This contention is seriously disputed by the counsel for the petitioner, who refers to Annexure P-4, which is a site plan which was filed by respondents Gurdial Singh and another in a suit filed by them against Municipal Council, Abohar. It is stated that khasra numbers are not mentioned in this site plan and khasra No.388/1 is depicted in such a manner that even the land of the Civil Revision No.3030 of 2002 : 4 : petitioner-decree holder comprised in khasra No.1264/1 is included in the site plan. From this, it is urged that the attempt on the part of the respondents to encroach the land of the petitioner-decree holder is complete and they have shown themselves to be in possession of a land which otherwise is owned by the petitioner-decree holder for which there is a judgment in his favour. Site plan, Annexure P-4, according to the petitioner is made in such a manner that it is contrary to the official revenue record, i.e., Mussavi. It is pointed out that plot of Gurcharan Singh is wrongly shown on the east side of khasra No.388/1, whereas according to the Mussavi east of this khasra number is road of Municipal Council. The copy of Mussavi has, thus, been placed on record as Annexure P-5. As per this, towards west of khasra No.388/1 and khasra No.1264/1 is the Hanumangarh Road. The Municipal Council road, which is depicted as 20' wide in the site plan, Annexure P-4, and in Annexure P-6 is depicted as point A to A1 between khasra No.388/1 is on the southern side of the Municipal Road A to A1 in the Mussavi. Thus, there is no part of land comprised in khasra No.388/1 towards north of Municipal Council street, which is 20' wide. It is, thus, projected by the counsel for the petitioner that street measuring 20' wide of the Municipal Council is depicted as a part and parcel of land in khasra No.1264/1 and is sought to be encroached by the respondents for which action was prayed to be taken in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. It cannot be disputed that Mussavi, Annexure P-5, prepared by the revenue authorities is an authentic and official Civil Revision No.3030 of 2002 : 5 : Government record. On that basis, the petitioner is entitled to protect his possession in respect of land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas comprised in khasra No.1264/1, which is on the northern side of the road between khasra No.1264/1 and khasra No.388/1 depicted as A to A1. The perusal of Mussavi, Annexure P-5, would further show that on west side of khasra No.1264/1 is Hanumangarh Abohar Road. Ram Marg is on the northern side comprised in khasra No.1265. Kanwarpal Singh has a plot on the eastern side comprised in khasra No.1259/1. On southern side of khasra No.1264/1 now exists a pacca Municipal road, which has never been challenged by the respondents. The pacca Municipal road is infact four karams wide on eastern side of khasra No.1264/1 and 13 karma's alongside of khasra No.1259/1 and on southern side of this road is the land of the respondents comprised in khasra No.388/1. It is on this basis asserted by the petitioner that respondents are wrongly and without any basis asserting their possession in the land comprised in khasra no.1264/1 and they have put their khokha in the said land. The plea of violation of the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1996 is, thus, alleged. These aspects have clearly not been considered by the court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. In this background, it can not be said that it was only an attempt to encroach the land and dismiss the application on that ground. The petitioner has made out a case for enforcement of the decree by attachment of the property of the respondents. The list of such property has been separately attached and they were also held liable Civil Revision No.3030 of 2002 : 6 : to be detained in the civil prison. The revision petition, thus, deserves to be allowed. Impugned order dated 5.2.2002 is set-aside. The application of the decree-holder-petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC is allowed. The necessary consequences in terms of this order would follow. April 23,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE