JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for setting aside the order dtd. 12/4/2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby application dtd. 27/2/2024 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner/decree holder informing the Executing Court about the factum of the non-delivery of the actual possession of the property in dispute to him, was dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner herein was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.709 of 1990, which was filed by him against as many as 43 defendants seeking possession of the suit property comprised in Khewat No.161, Khatouni No.518, Rect. No.26, Khasra No. 10 (3-18), situated in village Brahman Majra, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib on the ground that he was the title holder of the said property and that defendants did not have any concern with the same, but had encroached upon the same. Vide judgment dtd. 12/8/1994 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sub Judge I- Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, the said suit was decreed. One of the defendants Babu Ram challenged the said judgment and decree by filing Civil Appeal No.137-T of 1994, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 9/8/1999. No further appeal was filed and thus, the judgment dtd. 12/8/1994 attained finality.

(3.) Petitioner being the decree holder then filed execution No.2/ 14T/11/2/2000 in 2000. It is contended that ever since then, he is unable to take possession of the suit property pursuant to the judgment and decree dtd. 12/8/1994 passed in his favour despite issuance of warrants of possession several times. Earlier the warrants could not be executed for want of police help. Later on, it was reported by the Revenue Officials that Jhuggis and cemented houses had been constructed; and electric meters and hand pumps had been installed in the suit property and as such, they showed their inability to remove the said constructions and sought appropriate directions for the removal. Correspondence was done with the District Magistrate to provide necessary police help. It is the allegation of the petitioner that because of the non-serious conduct of the administrative authorities, the warrants of possession could not be executed despite intervention of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Court.