Civil Revision No. 3330 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3330 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.5.2011 *** Sarup Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Committee, Rohtak .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The husband of the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent Municipal Committee from demolishing the construction of the site in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner. After the contest the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.1994. However, the appellate Court on an appeal preferred, modified the judgment of the learned trial Court and partly decreed the suit vide judgment dated 30.4.1997 by restraining the defendants from demolishing the plaintiff's construction over the suit property and from dispossessing him therefrom on the basis of notice under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. A liberty was also given to the defendant to evict the plaintiff from the suit property in due process of law. Thereafter, the decree holder initiated the execution proceedings and prayed that the JD in gross violation of the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1997 not only demolished the wall constructed by the decree holder but also encroached upon major portion of the land, the possession of which is liable to be restored in favour of the decree holder. The objections were filed and issues were settled. Both the parties led their evidence and after the contest the execution petition has been dismissed by dint of order dated 31.3.2011, leading to the institution of the present revision petition. Civil Revision No. 3330 of 2011 2 Heard. It is evident from the records that an order dated 1.6.1998 was passed against the plaintiff by the Executive Magistrate, Rohtak in proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. wherein the plaintiff was found to have encroached upon the public land and creating obstacle in the way of constructing a wall. The aforesaid order was challenged by the plaintiff but he failed to get any relief from the competent Court and the said order attained finality. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.1997 it was made clear that it will not come in the way of order dated 1.6.1998 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Rohtak under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and the same can be executed as per law. Consequently, the said order was complied with by the respondent and the illegal and unauthorized construction/ obstacles were removed. Taking into account these facts, the Court below rightly concluded that there was no violation of the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1997 and the said judgment is implemented by the JD as per law. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 19, 2011 Jiten