BANT SINGH ALIAS BALWANT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, in execution of a decree dated 3.10.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.3 of 6.1.1998, whereby suit for possession of the plaintiff-petitioners was decreed as under:-

(2.) After passing of the aforesaid decree which has since attained finality, the respondents decided to make the payment of the land in dispute and assessed the market value of the aforesaid land at the rate of Rs.650/- per square yard vide Annexure P8, and offered a sum of Rs.39,04,542/-, as compensation to the petitiones and deposited the same with the Court vide cheque dated 2.6.2006/-. The aforesaid amount was withdrawn by the petitioners by making application dated 17.7.2006 reserving their right to claim further compensation in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application dated 16.9.2006 (Annexure P6) )in the Executing Court seeking a direction to the respondents to make the payment of the land in dispute taking the market value at Rs.1500/- per square yard instead of Rs.650/- per square yard as paid by the respondents. To the aforesaid application, objections were filed by the respondents. The petitioner-decree holders further filed re-joinder to those objections and the Executing Court vide impugned order held that the department has assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.650/- per square yard and has made the payment on the basis of the aforesaid market value and dismissed the execution application by observing that the respondents have made the payment after making the assessment which is correct and there was no need to adduce further evidence. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before this Court that the order passed by the Executing Court cannot be sustained, as without having any evidence on the record, the Executing Court has given a finding that the market value assessed by the respondents is correct.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the only direction by the impugned decree was to the extent of making the payment at the prevalent rate in the market and the respondents have already assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.650/- per square yard, and that the aforesaid value, as assessed by the respondents, has never been challenged by the petitioners, and therefore, the impugned order has been passed legally and correctly. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.