Civil Revision No. 5539 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5539 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2009 The Fairdkot Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. ......petitioner Versus Mukhtiar Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. **** SABINA, J. Decree-holder Mukhtiar Singh was granted compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 21.2.1990 on account of acquisition of his land. Thereafter, the rate of compensation was enhanced by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 2.1.1999. The compensation was further enhanced by this Court vide order dated 9.9.1999. The decree-holder filed execution application. Since the decree-holder had received the Civil Revision No. 5539 of 2009 (O&M) 2 entire amount of compensation his counsel made a statement that the execution petition/application be dismissed as withdrawn being partly satisfied. On the basis of the said statement, the impugned order dated 26.8.2009 was passed, which reads as under:- “ In view of the statement of learned counsel for the decree-holder, present execution application is dismissed as withdrawn being partly satisfied. Proceedings shall remain intact and decree-holder would be at liberty to file fresh execution application within limitation. File be consigned.” Hence, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, the execution petition had been filed claiming Rs.14,33,463.98 paise, however, an amount of Rs.14,81,201/- had been paid to the decree-holder. In case any further amount was found due by the decree-holder, he could file a fresh execution application within limitation but the attached land and the bank account of the petitioner were liable to be released. The proceedings were not liable to be kept intact by the Executing Court. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that he has no objection if the line “Proceedings shall remain intact” was deleted from the impugned order as the decree holder has received the entire amount, which was due from the Civil Revision No. 5539 of 2009 (O&M) 3 petitioner. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the line “Proceedings shall remain intact” stands deleted from the impugned order. The remaining part of the order shall remain as it is. (SABINA) JUDGE November 30, 2009 anita