C.R. No. 1050 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1050 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: January 12, 2009 Smt. Giano .. Petitioner v. Devia and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.11.2006, passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby in the execution filed by the petitioner, a direction has been given by the Court to issue notice to the persons, who have been recorded owners in the latest jamabandi for the year 2003-04. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession and declaration to the effect that orders dated 25.4.1988, passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana and that of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak on 12.12.1991 were illegal, null and void. A decree for mesne profits against the respondents for illegal use and occupation of the property from Rabi, 1988 till the delivery of possession was also sought. Though the suit was decreed by the learned trial court, however, the learned lower appellate court, vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.2001, decreed the same as prayed for while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The petitioner filed execution of the decree passed in her favour in which the learned Executing Court, while opining that in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84, Jamula Malkan were shown to be the owners of the land, whereas subsequently some persons other than the judgment-debtors have been recorded as owners of the land, the possession of which was to be delivered to the petitioner. Accordingly, it was felt necessary to issue notices to those persons who were recorded as owners of the land in the latest jamabandis. In spite of service, no one has appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that approach of the C.R. No. 1050 of 2007 [2] learned Executing Court was not right while directing issuance of notice to the persons who were recorded as owners of the land in the current jamabandis. He submitted that after filing of the suit, consolidation proceedings took place in which khasra numbers of the land changed. The description of the property, as was mentioned in the suit with reference to khasra numbers, the claim regarding which was made in the suit, were given new khasra numbers in the consolidation proceedings. The petitioner is entitled to her claim pertaining to new khasra numbers assigned to the old khasra numbers, as it is the property which is in possession of the respondents-defendants against whom the decree was to be executed and whatever changed khasra numbers have gone to them, the petitioner is entitled to execute the decree against them and not the persons who have been recorded as owners in the current jamabandis of the old khasra numbers because these numbers have been assigned to the present owners against some other khasra numbers. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I find merit in the submissions made. The claim was made in the suit with regard to certain khasra numbers, which were stated to be in possession of the respondents-defendants. The khasra numbers changed during consolidation proceedings, meaning thereby which were mentioned in the plaint were assigned certain new numbers. After the consolidation proceedings, the respondents-defendants must have been shown in possession of the new/changed khasra numbers and the old khasra numbers have been shown in the ownership of some other persons. As it is the decree with regard to the specific land mentioned in the suit against the respondents-defendants, which is sought to be executed, the petitioner is entitled to execute for the new khasra numbers which have been changed after the consolidation proceedings in the names of the respondents-defendants. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Notice of the execution petition is required to be issued to the defendants, however, with regard to the new khasra numbers which have been changed after the consolidation proceedings. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.1.2009 mk