Civil Revision No.7817 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7817 of 2011 Date of Decision : 16.12.2011 Jagdish .......Petitioner Versus Ramji Lal @ Ajay and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) Jagdish, the objector-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the impugned order dated 29.11.2011, (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the objections filed by him in the execution proceedings No.117 of 2009 titled as Ramji Lal @ Ajay and another Vs. State of Haryana and others in the Land Acquisition Case No.75 of 2006 for execution of judgment/decree dated 24.07.2009 were dismissed. It is alleged by the petitioner that Ramji Lal @ Ajay and Smt. Sunita, his brother and sister through their General Power of Attorney, Smt. Ratni Devi, agreed to sell the land measuring 7 Bighas 12 Biswas of land to Jagdish on 16.12.2004. Thereafter, this land was 1 Civil Revision No.7817 of 2011 acquired by the HUDA. The objector-petitioner prayed that the compensation of the acquired land be disbursed to him (Jagdish) and not to Ramji Lal @ Ajay and Smt. Sunita, respondent Nos.1 and 2. These objections were filed in the execution proceedings No.117 of 2009. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objections vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the objector has filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner-objector argued that originally Karta Ram, the father of the parties was the owner of the land in question. He further argued that as Ramji Lal @ Ajay and Smt. Sunita Devi, have executed an agreement to sell the land in favour of the petitioner, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The decree-holders, i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2, alleged that the so called agreement is manipulated and forged in order to grab the compensation amount. The veracity of the agreement in question is yet to be established. The proper remedy for the objector is to file a suit for specific performance and not to file objections in the execution proceedings. The mere agreement does not confer any right or title in the property. In view of the above, as there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 2 Civil Revision No.7817 of 2011 16.12.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3