GOPAL KRISHAN SABHARWAL Vs. SAHIB DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are officials of the State of Punjab, have filed the instant revision petition challenging the order dated 2.4.1998, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, in execution of the decree dated 22.11.1984. Vide the impugned order, the petitioners were ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from their own pocket to the decree holder (respondent No. 1 herein) for demolishing the boundary wall and main gate of the disputed property, in violation of the decree dated 22.11.1984 for permanent injunction, whereby the State of Punjab was restrained from dispossessing the decree holder from the suit land, except in due process of law.

(2.) IN the present case, the decree holder along with others filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State Government and its officials, alleging therein that they had purchased the suit land from defendants Nos. 4 to 6 vide registered sale deeds in the year 1970 and thereafter, they had constructed house on the same. When the officials of the State Government came to demolish their house, they filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction. The said suit was contested on the ground that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit land, as the same was acquired in the year 1976 and vests in the State. An objection was also taken that the suit was not maintainable. The trial court decreed the suit. It was found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and they cannot be dispossessed from the same, otherwise than in due course of law. It is the conceded position that the said judgment and decree became final, as no appeal was filed by the State against the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has made three fold submissions before this Court. Firstly, that the petitioners did not demolish the boundary wall and main gate of the disputed property and the finding recorded in this regard is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Secondly, that the petitioners were not party to the decree, hence the execution was not maintainable against them. Thirdly, that the State Government was the owner of the disputed property, therefore, even if the petitioners were present on the spot, they were performing their official duty, for which they cannot be held responsible and ordered to pay compensation. It is also argued that the Executing Court has wrongly passed the impugned order by taking the decree holder as owner of the disputed property, whereas he is not the owner of the same.