Civil Revision No.3490 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3490 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 25, 2011 Mohar Khan and another .....Petitioners v. Mehmood and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Prashant Bhardwaj, Advocate for Ms.Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.4.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad, Annexure P1, vide which objections filed by petitioners have been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of partition was filed by respondents- decree holders against petitioners-judgment debtors, which was decreed in their favour and a preliminary decree was passed. Thereafter an application was filed for making the final decree, on which Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted its report suggesting the mode of partition alongwith the site plan prepared at the spot and in view of the report of Local Commissioner, final decree was passed by learned trial Court vide Civil Revision No.3490 of 2011(O&M) -2- order dated 15.5.2010. After passing of the final decree, the present execution petition was filed by respondents-decree holders, in which warrant of possession was issued, as per the final decree. As petitioners resisted in execution of the decree, police help was sought by Executing Officer as well as by Girdawar and the same was also provided by learned Executing Court vide order dated 15.1.2011. Thereafter, the present application was moved by present petitioners-judgment debtors in which plea has been taken for the first time that the land in dispute is an agricultural land and hence as per Sections 111 to 123 read with Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, partition of land can be done only by the revenue Officer and that civil Court cannot partition the same. The plea was not accepted by learned Executing Court and the objections to this effect filed by petitioners-judgment debtors were dismissed by observing that petitioners-defendants have themselves pleaded in the written statement that they have constructed shops and houses in the suit property and are continuing in possession of the same for the last 12 years. Hence, once, as per averments of petitioners-defendants, the land in dispute is no more agricultural land as they have also raised construction of shops and houses on the land in dispute, it cannot be said that the land in dispute is still agricultural land and that only revenue officer is competent to partition the same. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Civil Revision No.3490 of 2011(O&M) -3- Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 25.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge