LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation for the petitioner. The case is of the year 2006 and it is specifically brought before this Court under the order of Honourable the Acting Chief Justice for quick disposal, having identified the same as a civil revision against interim order passed in decree. I have, therefore, hastened to dispose of the case on the basis of records although there is no representation on both sides.

(2.) The civil revision arises out of proceedings taken by means of an objection by the judgment debtor-State of Haryana contending that the execution petition was not maintainable since the decree had been fully satisfied. The contention by the State was that the Government was required to pay a compensation only for 2.14 acres of land that had been acquired for laying a road but the execution petition had been filed, as though the Government had acquired 4.01 acres and that the compensation already paid was only in respect of 2.14 acres and for the balance of extent, the decree-holder was still entitled to recover the amount.

(3.) The Executing Court rejected the objection taken by the judgment debtor and held that the actual properties that had been acquired were found in Khasra No.471//2 (6 bigha 11 biswas), 12/2 (8 Bigha 8 Biswas) and 18/2(4 bighas 12 biswas) totalling an extent of 4.01 acres only and therefore, the amount that had been paid already by the judgment-debtor was only in respect of 2.14 acres. Consequently, it held that the decree-holders were entitled to recover the remaining amount. The objection taken by the judgment debtor was, therefore, held to be not tenable and it proceeded to dismiss the objection. Strangely, I find that an appeal had been filed against the order of the Executing Court to the District Judge, Bhiwani in Misc. Civil Appeal No.249 of 2004. If the objection taken by the judgment debtor were to be taken as an application filed under Sec. 47 Code of Civil Procedure that the decree had already been executed and there was no further execution leviable then the order passed under Sec. 47 Code of Civil Procedure could not be appealable under any of the provisions of Order 43 and only revision could have been possible. It could not have been construed as a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure since the case did not involve the issue of objection to delivery of property but the issue was only payment of money. The appeal before the District Judge itself was not competent.