RAM DASS Vs. CHANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment-debtor Ram Dass (for brevity, 'JD-Petitioner') has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution who has prayed for quashing order dated 30-10-2004 passed by the learned executing Court in execution proceedings in Civil Suit No. 5 of 2004 instituted on 26-2- 2004 titled as 'Chandi and others v. Ram Dass and others'. The learned executing Court has dismissed the objections of the JD-petitioner by holding that the objections raised by him with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also subject matter of consideration of the Court which had passed judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 82 of 1994 instituted on 17-1-1994. The suit was decreed in favour of the decree- holder respondents 1 to 4 (for brevity, 'DH- respondents') on 18-8-1999 and the first appeal was dismissed on 10-2-2004 being CA No. 188 of 1999. A Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 119 of 2004 was also dismissed by this Court on 25-3-2004 and even the S. L. P. (Civil) No. 9358 of 2004 filed by the JD-petitioner also failed. The JD-petitioner who contested the suit as defendant was directed to hand-over vacant possession of the suit land to the DH-respondents within two months from the date of that judgment. The operative part of the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1999 reads as under :-

(2.) When the DH-respondents filed execution proceedings, the JD-petitioner preferred objections (Annexure P. 16) by alleging that the land belonged to Gram Panchayat and under the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') only Gram Panchayat is entitled to seek his ejectment and in any case the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 13(1) of the Act is barred. Another objection raised was that the JD-petitioner is lessee under the Gram Panchayat and he cannot be deprived of possession in the execution proceedings.

(3.) In the reply filed by the DH-respondents it was asserted that no lease deed in favour of the JD-petitioner was produced on record which is alleged to be dated 15-5- 1992 or 20-2-1992 nor any affidavit dated 29-8-1986 was produced. The executing Court rejected the objections. Therefore, the plea that JD-petitioner was a tenant under the Gram Panchayat has been rejected and the JD-petitioner was held in unauthorised possession. The issue with regard to jurisdiction had been subject matter of decision of the Civil Court which was upheld upto Supreme Court by holding that the civil Court has the jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances .of the case. The execution Court dismissed the objections of JD-peti- tioner by observing as under :-