RAM CHANDRA LAXMINARAYAN Vs. QUINTEN MEMORIAL HALL, SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is a unique instance as to how execution of a decree is stalled for years by raising some frivolous objections under the cover of Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Long period of 2 years has elapsed since the decree sought to be executed in Title Execution Case No. 1(H) of 1966, yet the fruit of the decree is not in sight of the decree holder. The decree holder filed Title Suit No. 2(H) of 1966 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Shillong and the suit was decreed for ejectment of the judgment debter from the suit premises. Title Appeal No. 25 of 1959 was preferred in the Court of Additional District Judge, Lower Assam District a Gauhati against the said decree which was allowed. Thereafter the decree holder approached this court in S.A. 170/61. Learned Single Bench of the High Court allowed the Second Appeal and restored the decree for ejectment passed by the learned trial Court. Judgment debtor filed letters Patent Appeal No. 5/64 against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the decree holder opposite parties filed Title Execution Case No. 1(H) of 1966 and in that execution proceeding judgment debtor, the petitioner filed a petition on 30-6-1966 for granting six months time to vacate the decretal premises and the learned executing court allowed times till 31-12-1966 to vacate the decreetal premises. Judgment debtor petitioner, however on expiry of the period upto 31-12-1966, did not vacate the decreetal premises and instead filed a petition under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Title Execution Case No. 1(H) of 1966, contending, that the decree was satisfied in view of the fact that there was an oral agreement with the decree holder for a fresh tenancy in respect of the decretal premises at a higher amount of monthly rent. The decree bolder filed reply to objection on 20-2-1967 and denied the aforesaid contention and prayed after execution of the decree. Thereafter, judgment debtor took adjournments on some dates and ultimately on 13-5-1967 the learned Executing Court heart argument on the objection petition and fixed 10-6-1967 for evidence of the judgment debtor and his witnesses. On 10-6-1967 neither the petitioner (the judgment debtor) not any witness of on behalf of judgment debtor was examined instead filed a petition with the prayer to appoint a commission to record deposition of alleged two chance witnesses to the alleged oral agreement who were not residents of Shillong but one of whom was a resident of Calcutta and another of Jaipur. Thereafter, on the question of examination of alleged two chance witnesses of the alleged oral agreement, on commission, the matter was dragged in this Court in revision petitions and time was consumed on various other reasons. Ultimately the petition under Section. 47 C.P.C. was disposed of and was rejected by the learned District Judge, Shillong by Judgment and order dated 16-6-1984 and the Judgment debtor-petitioner has impugned the said judgment and order in this revision petition.

(2.) Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the said order of the learned District Judge made the following submission :

(3.) Mr. L. Das, the learned counsel for the decree holder opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that against the proposed acquisition of the suit premises with other land objection under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was filed after the Notification dated 5-11-86 was issued by the Collector at Shillong. The said subjection has not yet been disposed of. In support of the contention the Secretary of the decree holder. The Land Shri J.N. Choudhury, has filed an affidavit stating that he filed an objection under section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act on 28-11-1985 against the proposed acquisition and no decision on the objection petition, has yet been communicated to decree holder namely, the owner of the property. In the objection under section 5-A the decree holder amongst other contented that (i) the Quinten Memorial Hall which forms part of the premises sought to be acquired was subject matter of litigation pending disposal by the Honourable Gauhati High Court in Civil Revision No. 7(SH)/84 (ii) the 'Quinten Memoraial Hall' is a property of Trust and the public of Shillong, the real beneficiaries of the property as per the Trust Deed, had a great religious sentiment for the hall and if the same was acquired and used for any other purpose their religious sentiment would be hurt, (iii) the Quinton Memorial Hall, viz, the decretal premises carried immense historic significance, inasmuch as an completion of construction of the hall, the hall was inaugurated by Swami Vivekananda in 1901 and that it was the only public hall in the entire North Eastern Region of Country where Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Roy, Dr. Anne Basant and many other luminaries of India addressed the public (iv) besides by resolution dated 28-4-1982 the trustees of the Hall in their meeting held on the same day resolved to hand over the decretal property to the 'Ram Krishna Mission' for social cultural literary, philant ropic and such other public purposes for which the hall was constructed. A copy of the resolution was also forwarded to the Collector. The counsel for the judgment debtor-petitioner has stated that judgment debtor, filed objection under section 5-A of the Act against the proposed acquisition, but could not produce the copy of the objection filed by the judgment-debtor. It is submitted on behalf of the decree holder opposite party that unless the application under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is disposed of, and communicated to the owner, further proceeding under the Act after acquisition of the land will be illegal and without jurisdiction. I find much force in the submission of the learned counsels for the decree bolder. No decision in the objection under Sec. 5-A of Act 1 of 1894, having been communicated, it is to be presumed that the objection under section 5-A has not been disposed of in accordance with law. An owner has a valuable right under section 5-A of the Act and in case adverse order is passed in the objection, he has a right to approach the appropriate forum for remedy. The submissions that decretal premises has been acquired by the Government and the Government has become the owner of the decretal premises cannot be accepted because only after disposal of objection under section 5-A in accordance with law, steps under other provisions of the Act for Acquisition of the land can be taken.