HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 27 of 2008 Prem Shankar Gupta & ors. ..… Revisionists. Versus State and anr. ….. Respondents. Shri B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for revisionists. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for State. ALONGWITH Civil Revision No. 28 of 2008 Rishipal Singh & ors. ..… Revisionists. Versus State and anr. ….. Respondents. Shri B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for revisionists. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for State. Civil Revision No. 29 of 2008 Rishipal & ors. ..… Revisionists. Versus State and anr. ….. Respondents. Shri B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for revisionists. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for State. AND Civil Revision No. 30 of 2008 Rishipal & ors. ..… Revisionists. Versus State and anr. ….. Respondents. Shri B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for revisionists. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for State. 2 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of these revisions, preferred under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 04.03.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udham Singh Nagar, whereby objections under Section 47 C.P.C. filed by the opposite party was allowed. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these revisions are that the revisionists have filed different suits against the State before Civil Judge (Senior Division), for mandatory injunction, directing the opposite party to pay compensation at the market rate of their land taken by the respondent for constructing Bisity-Sitarganj Bye Pass Road. After hearing the revisionists as well as the opposite party, the suits were decreed and the Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby plaintiffs were given liberty to make a representation before the Collector for calculation of compensation of the land. Said land was taken by the State Government for construction of Bisity-Sitarganj Bye Pass Road. It further directed the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, to decide the representation in view of the market value of 1999-2000, and ensure the payment of compensation within a period of three months. It further directed that 6% interest would also be paid from the year 1980 on the amount calculated by the Collector. The judgments and decree passed by the lower court have not been assailed by the opposite party/State before Higher Court, therefore, the judgments and decree have become final. Learned counsel for revisionists has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and decree, the representations 3 have been made by the plaintiffs before the Collector on 27.03.2006 but no decision has been taken. Therefore, applications for execution have been moved by the revisionists before the Civil Court. After perusal of said applications, it shows that revisionists themselves calculated the amount of compensation. On this, the objections have been filed on behalf of opposite party before the Executing Court stating that without determination of the compensation by the Collector the execution application moved on behalf of the revisionist is not maintainable. Learned Civil Judge, has allowed the application, filed on behalf of the opposite party on the sole ground that the compensation has to be calculated by the Collector and thereafter the revisionist would be entitled for the payment of compensation. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, all the revisions are dismissed. However, it is provided that the revisionists shall be at liberty to make appropriate applications afresh before the court for non- compliance of the order passed by the civil court. The finding given in the execution application by the learned Civil Judge shall not come in the way in deciding the application. If such application is moved, the same shall be decided by the Court after hearing the opposite party on merits. (B.S. Verma, J.) 13.05.2011 S 4