Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh & Others vs Raj Kumari & Others on 27 March, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
CR No.5247 of 2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.5247 OF 2010 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 27th March , 2012
Mohinder Singh & others
.... petitioners
Versus
Raj Kumari & others
.... Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
****
PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. J. K. Goel, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
****
L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral)
CM No.8241-CII of 2012 The application is allowed and reply to CM No.6944-CII of 2012 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case Objectors Mohinder Singh etc. by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged orders dated 12.06.2010 Annexures P-17 and P-18 passed by executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal thereby dismissing objections filed by the petitioners in the execution petition and ordering issuance of warrant of possession.
Respondents No.1 to 4 decree holders filed execution petition against Jai Bhagwan judgment debtor (since deceased and represented by respondents No.5 to 9 as his legal representatives).
Suit of decree holders/respondents No.1 to 4 herein for possession CR No.5247 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of 2 bighas land being Eastern part of Khasra No.7284/1(5-10) by specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed by trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2001 Annexures P-3 and P-4. Decree holders have filed execution petition for execution of the said decree. In the execution petition, petitioners and proforma respondents No.10 to 15 filed objections alleging that relief of possession was not granted in the decree and, therefore, possession cannot be delivered to decree holders. It was also alleged that suit land has been acquired by State for carving out a colony by Haryana Urban Development Authority and the decree holders themselves moved application that compensation amount be not disbursed to judgment debtor. Objectors also claimed to be cosharers in the land in question. They alleged that they have constructed their house over a portion of the land since long. Objectors also got released 2 bighas 18 biswas land of their residential houses by filing writ petition. Entire acquired land is in possession of the Land Acquisition Collector.
Decree holders resisted the objections and pleaded that there is decree and consequent sale deed in their favour regarding specific two bighas land being Eastern part of Khasra No.7284/1 and, therefore, they are entitled to take possession of the said land. Possession of the suit land had been handed over at the time of agreement to the decree holders and, therefore, they did not claim relief of possession in the suit, but after passing of decree, judgment debtor succeeded in dispossessing the decree holders and, therefore, they are entitled to seek possession from the judgment debtor. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-17 dismissed the objections and vide order Annexure P-18 ordered issuance of CR No.5247 of 2010 (O&M) -3- warrant of possession. Said orders are under challenge in this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that decree holders have already received compensation for suit land measuring 2 bighas and, therefore, they are not entitled to execute the decree. Reference in this regard was made to award/judgment Annexure P-7 of reference Court whereby present decree holders were held entitled to compensation of 2 bighas acquired land out of khasra No.7284. However, counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that respondents No.1 to 4/decree holders had filed writ petition bearing CWP No.18762 of 2006 seeking release of the suit land from acquisition. The matter was referred to Director, Town and Country Planning before whom the matter is still pending consideration and respondents No.1 to 4 have not received or withdrawn compensation for the acquired land.
Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioners contended that compensation is lying deposited with Collector/reference Court. However, petitioners cannot derive any benefit out of this contention. petitioners have no concern with the suit land measuring 2 bighas. Even if the same has been acquired, it is a matter between decree holders and the State. Petitioners or objectors do not come into picture at all. They cannot claim any right, title or interest in the suit land. On the contrary, they purchased other land out of Khasra No.7284 excluding the suit land from judgment debtor Jai Bhagwan subsequent to the agreement in favour of the decree holders. The suit land was specifically excluded from the sale deed of the petitioners as submitted by counsel for respondents No.1 to 4.
Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the petitioners CR No.5247 of 2010 (O&M) -4- contended that houses of the petitioners are existing in their land and decree holders cannot take possession thereof. The contention cannot be accepted in this manner. Decree holders have right to take possession of the suit land measuring 2 bighas being eastern part of Khasra No.7284/1 irrespective of whether any part of houses of the petitioners exists therein or not. Petitioners cannot resist execution of the decree of the suit land.
Counsel for the petitioners also contended that even sale of specific suit land in favour of decree holders would amount to sale of share. The contention cannot be accepted because if a sole owner sells specific portion of his land, the vendee becomes owner of specific portion and does not become cosharer in the entire land of the vendor. Counsel for the petitioners contended that there were also other cosharers in the suit land in addition to the judgment debtor Jai Bhagwan. The contention cannot be accepted because no such plea was raised in objections.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the executing Court does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, it is ironical that decree holders are still fighting to take possession of the suit land although decree in their favour was passed on 28.04.2001 i.e. almost eleven years ago.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(L. N. MITTAL) 27.03.2012 JUDGE 'raj'