1 W.P.No.5346/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5346 OF 2011. 1. Daivashala W/o Haribhau Soge, Age 30 years,Occ.Household, R/o Babhulgaon, At present at Limbala, Taluka Jintur, Dist.Parbhani. 2. Kum.Gavlan D/o Haribhau Soge, Age 10 years, Occ.Education, R/o as above. 3. Kum.Durga D/o Haribhau Soge, Age 12 years, Occ.Education, R/o as above. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minors, U/g of their real mother petitioner No.1. ... Petitioners. Versus Bhagwan S/o Kishanrao Giram, Aged 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Babulgaon (Peth), Taluka Pathri, Dist.Parbhani. ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.S.Rathi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the Respondent. 2 W.P.No.5346/11 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.10.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners had filed claim before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation for compensation which came to be allowed by an award dated 9.4.2007. Thereafter, the present petitioners/original claimants filed execution petition for execution of the said award probably invoking the provisions of Order 21 of the C.P.C. The present Respondents filed an application to dismiss the said execution as provisions of Order 21 are not applicable. The Civil Judge (S.D.) and Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Parbhani allowed the 3 W.P.No.5346/11 objection of the present Respondent and dismissed the Execution Petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Kale, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the provisions of order 21 of the C.P.C. are not applicable for execution of the award and order 21 of the C.P.C. would not be applicable in the present proceedings. As the execution proceedings were filed relying on order 21 of the C.P.C., the authority has rightly rejected the execution proceedings. The learned counsel relies on the judgment in a case of "Vaijinath Ranba Gavli Vs. Bhanudas Chokobarode" reported in 1982 Mh.L.J. 775. 5. Mr.Rathi, learned counsel submits that the said award can be executed U/s 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads thus : "31. Recovery The Commissioner may recover as an arrear of land revenue any amount 4 W.P.No.5346/11 payable by any person under this Act, whether under an agreement for the payment of compensation or otherwise, and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a public officer within the meaning of Section of Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act." 6. Perusal of Section 31, it is manifest that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation can recover the amount under the award as an arrear of land revenue. The execution proceedings before the Commissioner could have been treated as a petition U/s 31 of the said Act. The said Act is a beneficial and social welfare legislation. It is not disputed that the said Civil Judge (S.D.) is also the Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and could have treated the same as a petition U/s 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and directed recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. 7. In light of the above, the impugned 5 W.P.No.5346/11 order is quashed and set aside. The Civil Judge (S.D.) and Ex-officio Commissioner Workmen's Compensation shall treat the said execution proceedings U/s 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and proceed as per the same. 8. Rule accordingly made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp5346.11