KHYALI RAM Vs. MAST RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This execution second appeal has got a chequered history. Subedar Mast Ram and others filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1346/3 was the Shamilat Tikka land of the residents of village Larha, in tehsil Hamirpur and that Khyali Ram had taken unlawful possession of the same and they, therefore, prayed for possession of the same as a consequential relief. This suit was filed by them in a representative capacity on 16-10-1952. The suit was decreed on 18-8-1953. The decree-holders took out execution proceedings on 4-8-1960. The judgment-debtor also filed objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code which were dismissed and in consequence of the execution possession of the land was delivered as also the costs amounting to Rs. 534.77 were recovered from the judgment-debtor and paid to the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor went in appeal to the court of the District Judge against the dismissal of his objection petition which was dismissed on 1-5-1961. Before the District Judge during the course of arguments an objection was taken by the judgment-debtor that the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act 1961 which had come into force with effect from 22-4-1961 had vested the land of which the possession had been delivered to the decree-holder in the Pan-chayat which alone could enforce the decree against the judgment-debtor. This objection, however, did not find favour with the District Judge who dismissed the appeal on 11-6-1961. The judgment-debtor went in second appeal to the High Court of Punjab. The High Court by its order, dated 22-2-1964 allowed the appeal holding that in view of the provisions of the Act of 1961 the Shamilat Tikka land, which had been declared to be Shamilat Deh by virtue of the insertion of Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act of 1961 had vested in the Panchayat and, therefore, the proprietors had ceased to have interest in it and as such the decree-holder cannot claim possession of the land and it was the Panchayat alone which could do so and thus the decree had become inexe- cutable in so far as the proprietors were concerned and it had become infructuous. It appears that after the decision of the High Court the possession of the land in dispute was restored to the judgment-debtor whether on his application or otherwise because there is nothing on the record to indicate nor the appellant has disclosed the facts in his petition or in the grounds of appeal.

(2.) After the possession was delivered back to the judgment-debtor he filed another application under Section 47 C. P. C. read with Ss. 144 and 151, C. P. C. for the refund of Rs. 534-77 which had been realised by the decree-holders from him as the costs of the suit. Further in that application he had made a prayer for restitution of an amount of Rs. 6,000/- on account of damages for the trees and the crops which were standing there on the land at the time when the possession was delivered to the decree-holders Mast Ram and others.

(3.) This petition was opposed. The executing court dismissed the application for restitution and thereafter the judgment-debtor filed two appeals, Nos. 44 and 45 of 1965 in the court of the District Judge. Appeal No. 44 related to the refund of costs realised by the decree-holders from him while appeal No. 45 related to the dismissal of the application regarding his claim for damages. Both these appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge by his judgment, dated 7-1-1966.