SATPAL SINGH Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against dismissal of an objection taken at the stage of execution before the Executing Court when compensation awarded and a reference under Section 18 by the Reference Court was sought to be recovered by the decree holder. An objection was made by the third party contending that the amount could not be granted to the decree holder and that he has right in the property. Counsel states that the judgment has been rendered by this Court in Parveen Malhotra v. State of Haryana, 2011 163 PunLR 464 that the executing Court will hear an objection from any person who is affected by the award. I am afraid that I shall not be in a position to accord to such an understanding of law. The said judgment has referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court; 1) Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, 1966 AIR(SC) 237In that case the issue was whether after fixing compensation it could refer a question of apportionment under Section 30 of the Act if the right to compensation for the land acquired had devolved upon the State. The Court held that a dispute between the private party and the State regarding the conflicting claims could be referred under Section 30 of the Act and that the State could seek for a reference under section 30. This judgment has absolutely nothing to do with a power of the Executing Court to adjudge on the apportionment. Yet another judgment referred to Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another, 2003 3 SCC 128and the question raised that the State could acquire its own land where an adjudication under Section 30 would include a reference to be made under Section 30, The Supreme Court held that the State is not a person interested as defined under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was a government land and there was no question of initiating an acquisition proceedings at all. In either one of the cases referred to above there is no issue regarding the power of Executing Court to adjudge on the apportionment of title or invite a reference from the Collector. An executing Court, it is an axiomatic, shall not traverse beyond the decree and allow for objections to be made against the valid execution of the decree otherwise than in the procedure laid down under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC itself. If a third party has a right in the money which has been awarded by the Court, it shall be only under an adjudication made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. A reference under Section 30 is a right which a person can obtain on an objection taken when the award was made by the Collector. The reference again shall be made only by the collector and cannot be applied by an executing court through any flat that reference must be made under Section 30. Executing Court shall stay within confines to execute the award against the judgment debtor for a money which is already assessed by the court. This point is also illustrated by several decisions and I may only refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court that have considered powers was Executing Court in the light of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act itself in Bal Shakriben (Dead) by Natwar Melsing v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1996 4 SCC 533 and Jaya Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada, 2005 1 RCR(Civ) 17 that the Executing Court will not traverse beyond the decree.

(2.) The objection at the stage of execution by the third party was correctly dismissed and there is no cause for re-opening the case. Counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to work out independent means of seeking a reference if such a course is permissible before any other court/forum. I make no pre-judgment of whether such a claim is possible at this stage. The revision petition is dismissed.