IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.728 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 05.02.2008 Keshav Rai Dhanda & ors. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate vs. Extra Assistant Colonisation Officer and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.M.C.Berry, Sr.DAG, Punjab *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.2000 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Executing Court, Ludhiana. It appears that the petitioners' land was acquired by the State Government and the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 16.6.1982 thereby holding them entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre for the land in Block-A, with the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre for the land falling in Block-B. The petitioners thereafter sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge vide his award dated 4.5.1985 enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.1,29,000/- per acre for the land falling in Block-A and Rs.96,800/- for the land falling C.R. No.728 of 2003 (O&M) -2- in Block-B. It further appears that the petitioners thereafter filed Regular First Appeals in this Court which are also stated to have been decided by this Court. The petitioners initiated execution proceedings for the recovery of the amount of compensation as awarded by this Court. Those execution petitions have now been disposed of by the learned District Judge-cum- Executing Court vide his impugned order after concluding that “execution application is consigned to the record room as fully satisfied.” Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners are entitled to recover some more amount from the respondents, therefore, their execution application ought not to have been consigned to the record room being “fully satisfied”. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned State counsel has also been heard. It is fairly stated by him that he has no objection if the expression “fully satisfied” is deleted from the impugned order thereby leaving it open for the petitioners to move a fresh execution application to establish their additional claim, if any. In view of the above-stated stand taken by learned State Counsel, the impugned order dated 31.8.2000 is modified to the extent that though the earlier execution application filed by the petitioners shall not be treated to have been consigned to the record room, however, it shall not preclude them from moving a fresh execution application in order to make out their alleged entitlement for some additional claim, in accordance with law. Disposed of. February 05, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE