IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 150 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.6.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Goverdhan & anr ….. Petitioners Versus Rattan Lal & ors. … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This petition is directed against the order of the learned Executing Court dated 29.3.2008 whereby he has directed that warrant of possession of the suit land be issued. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Rattan Lal Mahajan filed a suit for possession of land comprised in khata khatauni No.3/8 khasra No. 359 measuring 2 biswas in village Dakri, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Along with the suit, site plans Exts.PW3/A and PW3/B were filed. Tatima of the suit - 2 - property was exhibited as Ex.PW3/C. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was also rejected. Thereafter the plaintiff approached this Court in RSA No. 103 of 1993. The same was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on August 21, 2001 and a decree of possession of the suit land was passed in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms:- “As a result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below are set aside and a decree for possession of the suit land along with house –cum- shop thereon specifically detailed in plan Ex.PW3/A is passed in favour of the appellants plaintiffs and against the defendants. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.” The defendants approached the Apex Court but their petition for grant of leave to appeal was rejected. Thereafter the decree holder filed an execution petition. It would be pertinent to mention that in the Tatima Ex.PC, the northern boundary of the suit land was shown to measure 10 karams. When the revenue authorities executed the decree, they reduced the northern boundary to 7 karams. The decree holder objected that he has not been given the entire khasra number 359. Thereafter the Executing Court vide its order dated 12.3.2005 directed - 3 - the SDO(Civil), to remove the construction on any portion of the whole of khasra No. 359 and to hand-over the same to the decree holder. The judgment debtors filed a petition before this Court. After the matter was heard for some time, the counsel for the judgment debtors sought time to remove the construction from the entire khasra number 359 and also given an undertaking that construction on khasra No. 359 will be removed. On this undertaking being given, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- “Based upon the statement of Mr. Sood, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Subject to the petitioners filing an undertaking before the Executing Court within one week from today, the execution of the decree in question shall stay uptil 24th July, 2006. It shall be the duty and the responsibility as well as obligation of the petitioners-judgment debtors, emanating from the aforesaid statement of Mr. Sood to ensure that during this period of two months the structure standing on khasra No. 359 is demolished and during this period itself the possession of the entire land comprised in this khasra number is handed over to respondent No.1- decree holder, if during this period the petitioners do not do the aforesaid needful, on and after 25th July, 2006 the decree shall become executable forthwith in which event the learned Executing Court shall take all possible steps for ensuring that building standing on Khasra No. 359 is demolished. If in the process of such demolition of the building after 25th July, 2006 any damage is caused to the part of the building standing on khasra No. 471/360 that shall be entirely at the risk and responsibility of the petitioners for which no grievance or claim shall be entertained or adjudicated upon by any Court in Himachal Pradesh.” - 4 - Thereafter according to the judgment debtors, they dismantled the construction over khasra No.359. The decree holder did not agree to the same. Warrant of possession was issued to the Collector. The Collector then wrote a letter the Civil Judge that if the measurement of 10 karam on northern side is taken then the are of khasra no. 359 worked out to more than 2 biswas. In substance what the Collector was saying is that earlier Tatima exhibited in the Court as Ex,.PC was not correct. This Court has noted in a number of cases that the revenue authorities give certain reports or documents during the pendency of the case but when the time comes to execute the decree passed on the basis of such reports/documents the revenue authorities take a u-turn and point out errors in the earlier reports/documents prepared by them. They cannot be permitted to do so. In the Tatima Ex.PW3/C prepared by the revenue authorities, the land was shown having 10 karams length on the northern side and now it cannot be said that on the northern side the land is only 7 karams. Time and again this Court has held that the revenue authorities cannot sit over the judgment of the civil court. In the present case, the matter went up to the Supreme Court. The decree passed is that the judgment debtors be evicted from khasra No. 359. The learned Executing Court rightly held that the decree has to be executed as a whole. This is more so in view of the previous order passed - 5 - by this Court in which the applicants themselves had stated that they would vacate khasra No. 359 and had not raised any dispute with regard to the correctness of Tatima Ex.PC. The decree must be executed in the terms in which it has been passed. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the revenue staff in consultation with the Settlement Authorities will execute the decree and they shall also take into consideration the site plan Ex.PW3/A, Tatima Ex.PC and copy of jamabandi Ex.PA. In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the order of the learned trial Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. June 3, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. s.