SAYEDABAD TEA CO LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three miscellaneous first appeals by the decree-holder, which arise out of three execution cases, are directed against the order of the District Judge, Purnea, dated July 9, 1963, dismissing the execution cases filed by the appellants.

(2.) Proceedings were started sometime before 1951 by the Special Land Acquisition officer. North Bihar Range, Muzaffarpur, for the acquisition of three pieces of land belonging to the decree-holder for the purposes of the Assam Access Road. The lands appertained to touzi No. 30 of the Purnea Collectorate, situated in village Madati. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable to the appellant in respect of its lands but it was not satisfied with the valuation made by the said officer. Hence it filed three applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making reference to the court for the determination of the amount of compensation which gave rise to the three lands acquisition cases Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1951 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Purnea. The appellant withdrew the compensation money as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Additional District Judge increased the compensation in respect of the lands of the appellant by his judgment and decree dated May 7, 1954. The State of Bihar filed three first appeals; namely, F. A. Nos. 358, 360 and 359 of 1954 in the High Court against the judgment and decrees passed in the aforesaid three land acquisition cases. Thereafter, the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act 1956 (Act XL of 1956) was passed by the Parliament by virtue of which the portion of Purnea district where the acquired lands are wholly situated, was transferred to the State of West Bengal with effect from the appointed date i. e. November 1, 1956. The aforesaid three first appeals of the State of Bihar were pending in the Patna High Court on the appointed date. They were subsequently decided by the High Court on March 8, 1960 and the appeals were dismissed with costs. The appellants, thereafter, filed money execution cases Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1951 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Purnea, for the recovery of the amount of compensation which was determined by the Additional District Judge, payable to the appellant over and above the compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer together with costs and interest as allowed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The respondent, State of Bihar, filed objections to the execution of the decrees under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which gave rise to miscellaneous cases Nos. 85, 86 and 87 of 1962. The contention of the respondent was that the territory within which the acquired lands lay, had been transferred to the State of West Bengal and, as such, the State of Bihar was not liable for the amount of compensation and costs in respect of those lands. The learned District Judge upheld the contention of the respondent, allowed the miscellaneous cases and dismissed the three execution cases filed by the decree-holder appellant. Hence the decree-holder has filed the three miscellaneous appeals in this Court. As common question of law and facts arose to be determined by the Court below in the three miscellaneous cases, they were tried together and one Judgment was passed in respect of all of them. In this Court also the three appeals have been heard together and this judgment will govern them all.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the executing court had no jurisdiction to go behind the decrees. The three decrees under execution show that the appellant is the decree-holder and the State of Bihar is the judgment-debtor which is liable to pay the decretal amount to the appellant. Hence the court below should have executed the decrees as they are, and it is not justified in refusing to execute the decrees. It is difficult for me to accept this contention of learned counsel for the appellants. It is no doubt true that the executing court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree and it has to execute it as it stands, but for the purpose of executing the same, the court has to construe the decree. The court below has construed the decree in the light of Sections 17 and 47 of the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has come to the conclusion that though the State of Bihar figured as the judgment-debtor in the decrees under execution and is liable for the payment of compensation but in substance, the State of West Bengal is the actual judgment-debtor under the three decrees and the appellant should have executed the decrees in a Court within the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal and not in a court in the State of Bihar. Section 47 of the Act runs as follows:--