(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the judgment debtor against the order of the Executing court dated 9.8.1988, whereby the Executing court has directed the payment of compensation to the decree holder after having got it determined through commissioner.
(2.) IT appears that a suit for possession of 3 kanals and 10 marlas of land was instituted by the decree holder against the state and the Chief Executive Officer, Phalgam. In the said suit it was averred that judgment -debtors had taken forcible possession of the land of the decree holder without resort to acquisition proceedings. Therefore, possession was demanded back from the judgment debtors. In the alternative it was prayed that if decree for possession for any reason is not granted to the decree holders, they may at least be granted compensation for the land which was taken away by the judgment debtors.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY no acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken by the respondents in respect of the land involved in the suit, nor was that plea raised before the trial court. Therefore, suit for possession or in the alternative for compensation was filed. The suit was decreed on 26.10.1986 by a judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Anantnag. The learned District Judge Anantnag instead of granting a decree for possession to the decree holder directed that decree holders be granted compensation under law for the land with its structures, trees. The extent of value of the trees and structures on the land was directed to be determined separately under law, while determining the compensation to be paid to the decree holders in respect of the land. Decree holders were also held entitled to the interest on the amount of compensation. In that view of the matter relief for possession was declined to the decree holders. No appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26.10.1986. The decree of the court was allowed to become final.