JOGINDER SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Joginder Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran dated March 6, 1997. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court held that the decree-holder-petitioner has got symbolic possession of the land; decree is fully satisfied and the objections of the respondents were allowed. It was further held that decree-holder would be at liberty to get actual possession of the land by filing a separate suit.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on August 3, 1993, the decree-holder had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and joint possession. It was alleged that there was a passage bearing Khasra No. 86(2-16) and recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 of village Daburji, Tehsil Tarn Taran. It was further the case of the petitioner that the judgment-debtor Gram Panchayat had made a passage through the land owned by the petitioner bearing Khasra Nos. 78, 79, 84, 85 and 90, instead of Khasra Nos. 86. The passage should have been put on the northern side of Khasra Nos. 90, 89, 88, 101, 102 and 103. It was further the case that the disputed passage bearing Khasra No. 86 is 3 Karams in width, while it has wrongly been demarcated as 4 Karams. It causes difficulty in cultivation of the area. The suit as such was contested by Gram Panchayat and others. It was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge IInd Class, Tarn Taran on April 19, 1995. The Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed on April 1, 1997. The decree-holder petitioner filed an execution application. Warrants of possession was delivered to the decree-holder. The respondents-objectors submitted objections asserting that the decree is not executable as the passage has not been constructed by the Gram Panchayat but the Public Works Department (Punjab Mandi Board). The objections were considered and were dismissed on November 16, 1996. The learned trial Court held that though symbolic possession has been delivered, but the other part of the decree with respect to the proper alignment of the passage is yet to be executed.

(3.) It was followed by another set of objections, in which it was pointed that if actual possession has not been taken by the decree-holder, he can only file a fresh suit for possession. It was alleged that the report of the Revenue Officer dated September 9, 1996 is on the record, which shows that possession as such has been delivered.