ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIMITATION is pleaded as a bar for putting the rightful owner, i.e., Improvement Trust, Pathankot, fourth respondent herein, pursuant to an order of eviction passed against the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners and proforma respondents dated 17.9.1982. Is the plea of limitation in putting the rightful owner in possession in execution of warrant of possession justified, is the only question that needs determination in the present petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts, as projected in the petition reveal that Gurdas Mal, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and proforma respondents 5 to 11 was in possession of land measuring 16 kanals 17 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Pathankot. The fourth respondent filed an eviction application against said Gurdas Mal under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (herein-in-after referred to as the 'Act of 1973'). The Collector, Gurdaspur, respondent No. 3 herein ordered eviction of Gurdas Mal vide orders dated 17.9.1982. Appeal filed by Gurdas Mal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, was dismissed on 10.2.1986. It is the case of petitioner that fourth respondent, for the first time, filed an execution application on 25.8.1993 before Collector, Gurdaspur, to which objections were filed by Gurdas Mal on 16.12.1993. Vide orders dated 25.4.1997 execution application filed by the fourth respondent was dismissed in default. The fourth respondent filed an application for restoration of the execution application which was restored vide order dated 1.10.1997. Respondent No. 3 dismissed the execution application 22.9.1999 on the ground that the same is barred by time. Constrained, fourth respondent filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, along with an application for condonation of delay. During the pendency of the said appeal, Gurdas Mal expired on 4.3.2001 and petitioner and proforma respondents were brought on record as his legal heirs. Vide order, dated 14.8.2001 respondent No. 2 allowed the appeal. It is this order dated 14.8.2001 which has been challenged in the present petition on the sole ground that execution of order dated 17.9.1982 would be barred by provisions contained in Article 137 of the Limitation Act which would be applicable in the instant case and which in turn provides limitation for a period of three years only.

(3.) MR . Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that provisions contained in Article 137 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to an application for executing the warrant of possession and inasmuch as, application for execution of order of eviction was filed far beyond three years, same has to be held as barred by limitation. In support of the contention aforesaid, reliance has been placed on The Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC 282, Hari Narain v. Subhash Chander and others, AIR 1985 P&H 211, M/s. Sardari Lal Sat Pal v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, 1994(1) RRR 365, Inder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1977(1) PLJ 52, Sardara Singh v. Smt. Guryani Brij Bhallabh Kaur Trust Kartarpur, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 682 FCP : 1997(2) PLJ 60 and Gram Panchayat Surewala v. Commissioner, Ferozepur, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 707.