Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 94 (PAT)

Shyam Jahri Devi v. State Of Bihar

2005-02-01

R.S.GARG

body2005
Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard teamed counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed by a decree holder who under the hands of the State Government is not only harassed but is being crushed and crumbled. The might of the State is denying the right of the citizen. 3. The petitioner whose lands were acquired could secure an order in her favour but the State Government did not find it to be palatable, challenged the same in the appeal and after dismissal of the appeal went to the Supreme Court. The first Court passed the order in the year 1996, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court long back and from paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit, it would appear that the SLP could be filed on 17.12.2004 though the First Appeal No. 104 of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 10.12.2002 and the certified copy of the order was received by the respondents on 16.1.2003. 4. The present application came to be filed on 11.10.2004. It appears that after a copy of this application was served upon the other side, They proposed to prefer a SLP before the Apex Court. The SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court on 17.12.2004. Beyond giving the factual narrative description, the respondents have not said even a single word. They have not stated why they are not making payment to the petitioner. They have yet not got any stay order by the competent Court putting the operation and execution of the decree in abeyance. 5. I am sorry to record that the State Government is not acting fairly to its own citizen. The execution is pending consideration in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Aurangabad as Execution Case No. 11 of 1997. From the proceedings filed in this Court, it would simply appear that the learned Executing Court is giving longer rope to the respondents than what is required under the law. The execution case was filed on 16.1.1997 and is stated to be still pending. Not a single farthing has been paid to the petitioner and the executing Court feels satisfied and content by recording the proceeding and adjourning the case for the reasons best known to him. 6. I think, I must remind the learned executing Court that after an order or decree is passed in favour of some body then the order/decrees should be executed. 6. I think, I must remind the learned executing Court that after an order or decree is passed in favour of some body then the order/decrees should be executed. After long drawn litigation, if the execution process becomes lengthy and loses its way in the corridors of the Court, the ordinary litigant and public at large would lose confidence in the judiciary and the system. When the dues are not given to a person best entitled to, right in time, he talks bad. He talks bad about the Judge, the system and everything. If an ordinary citizen loses faith in the system then it gives a thunderbolt to the entire institution. I fail to understand why the learned Sub-Judge had been accommodating the State Government for all these years. If the learned Sub-Judge is afraid of the might of authority of the respondent State then he can request the District Judge to transfer the case from his Court and if he feels that he is honest and bold, then he must not be afraid of any thing come what way. 7. I direct the learned Executing Court to conclude the execution proceeding within a period of four months from the date of submission a copy of this order. If the State Government is not ready and willing to pay the amount due in the execution then at the request of the plaintiff decree holder the said Court may take coercive action against the respondents and its officers including on action of attaching property and the amount kept in the State treasury. 8. This petition is disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Sub-Judge through the agency of the District Judge, Aurangabad.