UNION OF INDIA Vs. B MATTU RAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is at the instance of the respondents 1 and 3, who are the Judgment-Debtors aggrieved against the order passed by the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.A.No.12 of 1986 in O.S.No.1775 of 1973 under which the delivery of the E.P., Schedule property was ordered to the petitioners/decree holders.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the petitioners in the E.P., seeking execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.1775 of 1973, dated 15-11-1978. In the E.P., the schedule property sought to be delivered was 16 acres 23 guntas in old Sy.Nos.113, 114 and 125/3, corresponding to new Sy.No.93/1 of Thokatta village of Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad district. The E.P., was filed on 22-4-1986. Later, an amended petition was filed on 6-10-1999 seeking the very same relief, but it is not known why the amended E.P. was filed.

(3.) The objection to the execution petition as per the counters, which are referred to in the impugned order, is that the suit was filed for only 16 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.93/1 for possession by ejectment and for payment of arrears. In the counters it was stated that an extent of 12 acres 23guntas in Sy.No.93/2 has already been acquired from the decree holders and an award was also passed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by ordering possession, and, therefore, sought to dismiss the Execution petition. It is also further stated that Judgment-Debtor No.3 filed an additional counter stating that the suit was filed basing on old survey numbers 113, 114, 125/3 in respect of an extent 16 acres 23 guntas. In the absence of any clear boundaries to the extent, it is difficult to identify the old survey numbers. The entire land .covered by the old survey numbers is under the defence occupation. Therefore, the claim of the decree holders is baseless. The Executing Court, however, appointed a Commissioner, who is a retired Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, and basing on the report of the said Commissioner, allowed the execution petition and ordered delivery of possession of the land in question. Aggrieved by that, the Judgment Debtors have come up with the present revision.