CR No. 2317 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2317 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 11th December, 2009. Prabhu Petitioner through Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate Versus Parbhati Lal & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Rajneesh Chhadwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the petitioner – Judgment Debtor against the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge [Senior Division]–cum–Executing Court, Narnaul whereby he has been directed to remove construction from Khasra No. 143 situated within the abadi deh of village Chapra Bibipur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh. The respondent – Decree Holder filed a suit for Permanent Injunction claiming himself to be the exclusive owner in possession of a part of the afore-stated Khasra Number. The suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 2.3.1998 and the petitioner – JD was restrained from raising any construction over the suit property. The decree has already attained finality. The impugned order passed by the Executing Court suggests that notwithstanding the restraint order, the petitioner – JD has raised construction over the said Khasra No. 143. It is in these CR No. 2317 of 2009. ::-2-:: circumstances that the impugned order directing the petitioner to remove the construction, has been passed by the Executing Court. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned order has been perused. It may be noticed here that the respondent – plaintiff/DH is admittedly entitled to 1/3rd share in Khasra No. 143 which comes to about 50 square yards. During the course of hearing and in order to save his constructed house, the petitioner – JD is ready and willing to give an un-encumberated plot of the same size in the same vicinity. The JD, who is present in court along with his counsel has offered another plot, which also appears to be part of Khasra No. 143 to the DH, who is also present in Court and accepts the offer, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall get the work of earth-filling done as the said part of land is a low-lying area. The DH further states that two Shisham trees standing on his plot have also been removed by the JD, though it is disputed by the latter. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the main dispute, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition with the following directions:- [i] the petitioner – JD shall complete the earth filling work on the plot being offered by him to the DH and shall also get the said plot fenced with barbed wire. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; [ii] the JD shall file an affidavit regarding completion of the CR No. 2317 of 2009. ::-3-:: above mentioned works before the Executing Court, Narnaul, who shall then appoint a Local Commissioner at the cost of the JD to visit the spot and submit a compliance report; [iii] the petitioner – JD shall obtain a resolution duly signed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to the effect that the alternative plot being offered to the DH, is free from all encumbrances and has been allotted to the petitioner – JD only. In other words, it shall be got certified that the said plot does not belong to the Gram Panchayat, Chapra or any other private individual; [iv] the subject decree was passed way back on 2.3.1998. The respondent – DH is struggling from last over 11 years to seek execution thereof. From the photographs on record, it appears that the construction has been raised by the petitioner – JD in utter defiance of the Civil Court decree. In these circumstances, mere offer of an alternative plot can not be the complete satisfaction of the subject- decree. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the hue and cry raised by the DH that his two trees have also been removed, I further direct the petitioner – JD to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.20,000/- to the DH towards costs. The costs shall be deposited with the Executing Court or paid to the respondent by way of Demand Draft, within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order; [v] in case the petitioner - JD fails to comply with the CR No. 2317 of 2009. ::-4-:: aforementioned directions/undertakings, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the Executing Court shall see that the directions issued by it for removal of the construction raised by the JD are complied with without any delay; [vi] Needless to say that once the alternative site is offered and possession delivered to the respondent – DH in the aforesaid terms, the respondent – DH shall have no claim over disputed part of Khasra No. 143. Disposed of. Dasti. December 11, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE