IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1799 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 25, 2009 Barkat … Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D. Anand, J. A decree for the possession, by way of specific performance, of the land in question was granted by the learned Trial Court in favour of the respondents – decree holders, and against the petitioner – judgment debtor, on 25.05.2004. It was an ex-parte decree. It is not averred to have been challenged till date. As the petitioner – judgment debtor did not honour it, the decree was implemented through a Court official. C.R. No. 1799 of 2008 The petitioner – judgment debtor filed an objection petition in which he resisted the execution of that decree by raising the following pleas:- “1. That the above noted execution petition is not maintainable under law, as such, is liable to be dismissed. 2. That in the above noted execution, the land for which the execution is filed by the decree holder, the said land cannot be alienated in any manner under law because there is a prohibition of alienation imposed by the Govt. 3. That the decree holder has filed the execution petition intentionally and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. That in the present execution, the decree holder has obtained the decree by placing wrong facts and by fraud and collusion which cannot be executed.” The learned Executing Court declined the objection petition vide impugned order dated 10.06.2006 (Annexure P/7) by observing that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and it is ordained to execute it as per the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned decree could not have been validly granted as the land under reference came to be allotted to the father of the petitioner – judgment debtor under a special scheme pertaining to the allotment of land to members of Scheduled Castes. The plea 2 C.R. No. 1799 of 2008 raised thereby is that, in terms of the relevant allotment, the land could not have been further alienated for a period of 20 years. Reliance, in supported of the advocated view, was placed upon Rule 6.8 of Part IV of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 & Rules which is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “(8) Bar on the alienation of the land purchased in restricted auction – (i) Where any land has been sold in restricted auction, the auction purchaser shall not be entitled to lease, transfer, sell, mortgage with possession, or otherwise alienate or part with the land wholly or partly, so purchased, in any manner, in favour of a person, who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Backward Class for a period of twenty years; provided that the land may be pledged in favour of a Government or Semi Government Corporation, or Corporative financing institution, for securing loan from effecting improvements of the said land.” Faced with the predicament of having to invite the attention of this Court to the objection petition wherein the relevant plea may have been raised, the learned counsel could offer no response. It is, even otherwise, apparent from the objection petition (Annexure P/6) that no such plea had been raised before the Executing Court. As the impugned decree was ex-parte in character, obviously no such plea came to be raised before the 3 C.R. No. 1799 of 2008 learned Trial Court as well. In that view of things, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to apply for invalidation of the impugned order on the above indicated premise. The learned counsel for the petitioner, then, argues that the obtaining of the impugned decree was vitiated by “fraud and collusion”. Qua that allegation, the petitioner may have recourse to the remedy available to him in the form of an independent suit, the maintainability itself whereof shall, obviously, be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. March 25, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4