CWP No.18721 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18721 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Mangal Singh and others ....Petitioners Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anupal,AAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 12.2.2008 and 6.5.2004, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, respectively, staying execution proceedings, on the ground that a question of title is pending before a civil court. The petitioners filed an application for ejectment of respondent no.3, their tenant, by filing a petition under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,1953. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Moga, ordered the ejectment of respondent no.3. The appeal filed by respondent no.3 before the Collector was dismissed. The revision filed before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and thereafter before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab were also dismissed. CWP No.11607 of CWP No.18721 of 2008 2 2000, filed by respondent no. 3 was dismissed on 31.8.2000. A Special Leave Petition filed by respondent no.3 was dismissed on 28.9.2000, with liberty to adopt appropriate civil proceedings for the same relief. During pendency of these proceedings, an execution petition filed by the petitioners was ordered to be kept in abeyance. Harchand Singh, respondent no.3 filed Civil Suit No.262 dated 8.11.2000 (Harchand Singh Vs. Gurdit Singh and others, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, alleging that he cannot be ejected, as he is not a tenant. During pendency of the civil suit, the petitioners filed an application for revival of execution proceedings. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade issued warrants of possession, but the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, stayed execution proceedings on account of pendency of the civil suit. A revision filed by the petitioners, impugning this order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the civil suit, filed by respondent no. 3, has been dismissed on 8.4.2009 and in the appeal, filed by respondent no.3, the Additional District Judge, Moga, has not stayed the dispossession of respondent no.3, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, should be directed to proceed with execution proceedings, in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioners further states, on instructions from Mangal Singh, one of the petitioners that in case, possession is delivered to them, they would restore possession to respondent no.3. within one week, if his appeal is allowed. Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that in view of the pendency of his appeal, execution proceedings should be kept in abeyance. The question, whether the respondent no.3 is a tenant and whether there is CWP No.18721 of 2008 3 any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is pending adjudication before the first appellate court. In case, respondent no.3 is dispossessed, it would cause irreparable loss, harm and damage. I have heard counsel for the parties. Admittedly, ejectment proceedings have attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A civil suit filed by respondent no.3 titled as Harchand Vs. Gurdit Singh and others denying the relationship of landlord and tenant was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga on 8.4.2009. In the first appeal filed by respondent no.3, the first appellate court has not stayed the dispossession of respondent no.3 or stayed execution proceedings. In the absence of any stay order or other legal impediment, the revenue officer charged with the duty of carrying out the ejectment order, is required to conclude execution proceedings in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 12.2.2008 and 6.5.2004 are set aside and the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Moga, is directed to proceed with execution proceedings, in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that in case respondent no.3 is dispossessed and thereafter his first appeal is allowed, the petitioners shall restore possession to respondent no.3 within one month and shall also be required to pay damages for use and occupation of the land in dispute, to respondent no.3. This order shall not prevent respondent no.3 from approaching an appropriate forum including the first appellate court for staying his dispossession. No order as to costs. 13.10.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE CWP No.18721 of 2008 4