Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1556 (PNJ)

Gopal Krishan Sabharwal v. Sahib Dayal

2009-09-03

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2009
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 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 judgement and decree became final, as no appeal was filed by the State against the same. 3. It is the case of the decree holder that sub-sequently, on 23.2.1993, the petitioners came to the disputed property with some casual labourers and demolished the boundary wall and main gate of the disputed property. It is further case of the decree holder that copy of the decree dated 22.11.1984 was shown to the petitioners, but they did not care for the same and illegally demolished the boundary wall and the main gate. It is further case of the decree holder that copy of the decree dated 22.11.1984 was shown to the petitioners, but they did not care for the same and illegally demolished the boundary wall and the main gate. Consequently, the decree holder filed the execution application, alleging that the petitioners deliberately have disobeyed the decree, passed by the Civil Court and had illegally demolished the boundary wall and the gate in gross violation of the decree. The petitioners contested the said execution application on the ground that the suit land was acquired by the State Government and possession of the same was taken by the Collector, but subsequently, the decree holder and some other persons took forcible possession of two khasra numbers, including the suit land, and thereafter, they filed the suit for permanent injunction and obtained the decree dated 22.11.1984 from the Civil Court. It was further averred that in view of the illegal possession, an application under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as -the Act-) was fi led against the decree holder. It is also alleged that the petitioner neither went to the spot, nor demolished the boundary wall and the main gate of the disputed property. Therefore, the execution filed by the decree holder was not maintainable. In the execution, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed - "1. Whether the respondents are guilty of violating the stay order - OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable - OPR 3. Relief." The Executing Court, after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the decree holder and held that the petitioners intentionally and deliberately violated the decree of permanent injunction and demolished the boundary wall and main gate of the disputed property, without there being any lawful order. In view of these facts, in its discretion, the Executing Court, instead of ordering civil imprisonment or to attach the salary or property of the petitioners, to meet the interest of justice, ordered the petitioners to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation from their own pocket to the decree holder. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made three fold submissions before this Court. 25,000/- as compensation from their own pocket to the decree holder. 4. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 decree holder has argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as the petitioners in gross violation of the decree and while taking the law in their hands, without there being any order from the competent authority, have demolished the boundary wall and gate of the disputed property in spite of the fact that they were shown copy of the decree at the spot. It has been argued that in these facts, the Executing Court has rightly compensated the decree holder, for the loss caused to him, by ordering the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from their own pocket. Learned counselfurther argued that the impugned order is just and reasonable, therefore, in the revisional jurisdiction, no interference is required. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. 7. It is the conceded position that much after the acquisition of the disputed land, the decree holder and other plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction, which was hotly contested by the State Government and its officials and ultimately, decree for permanent injunction restraining the State Government and its officials from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, otherwise than in due course of law, was passed. A perusal of the decree shows that it was passed only on the basis of possession of the plaintiffs oyer the suit land. A perusal of the decree shows that it was passed only on the basis of possession of the plaintiffs oyer the suit land. The plaintiffs were not declared owners of the suit land. Even if, possession of the decree holder over the disputed land was illegal, as per the decree, the State Government and its officials were required to take possession of the same by following the due course of law. A stand was taken by the petitioners in the execution proceedings that an application under the Act was filed against the decree holder, but undisputedly, no order was passed by the competent authority under the said Act to take possession of the disputed property from the decree holder. In absence of any specific order or without following the due course of law, the State Government and its officials could not have taken possession of the suit land, in view of the decree of permanent injunction passed in favour of the decree holder. But in the instant case, without there being any order passed by the competent authority, the petitioners, who are officials of the State Government, went to the spot and tried to dispossess the decree holder and in that process, they demolished the boundary wall and gate of the disputed property. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly argued that on 23.2.1993, the petitioners neither went to the spot nor demolished the boundary wall and gate of the disputed property, and the finding recorded by the Executing Court in this regard is perverse. I have gone through the aforesaid finding and the evidence led by both the parties, as shown during the course of arguments. In my opinion, the finding recorded by the Executing Court that on 23.2.1993, the petitioners came to the spot in order to take forcible possession of the disputed property, in gross violation of the decree, demolished the boundary wall and main gate of the disputed property, does not require any interference and the same cannot be said to be perverse. 9. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners insisted upon his other arguments. He contends that both the petitioners were not party to the decree, therefore, the execution application is not maintainable against them. This contention cannot be accepted. Concededly, both the petitioners are officials ofthe State Government. 9. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners insisted upon his other arguments. He contends that both the petitioners were not party to the decree, therefore, the execution application is not maintainable against them. This contention cannot be accepted. Concededly, both the petitioners are officials ofthe State Government. The State Government as well as its officials are bound by the decree. The petitioners being the responsible officials of the State Government, should have respected the decree, particularly when they were aware of the passing of the decree against the State Government and they were shown copy of the decree at the time of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, now the petitioners cannot be permitted to take the plea that they are not bound by the decree, because they were not party to the same. 10. Learned counsel forthe petitioners further argued that the Executing Court has wrongly held that since the decree holder is the owner of the disputed property, therefore, the State Government and it officials cannot take possession" either under the Act or in pursuance of the notification of acquisition dated 10.12.1973 without issuing fresh notification for acquisition of the disputed property. In my opinion, the observations of the Executing Court to the effect that "The respondent can neither take possession under the provisions of P.P. Act nor in pursuance of notification dated 10.12.73. The respondent has to issue fresh notification for acquisition of the disputed property as has been held by court of Sh. M.S. Randhawa, Sub Judge IInd Class, Ludhiana." are not correct, as the suit was decreed only on the basis of possession of the plaintiffs. No finding regarding ownership was recorded. Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the decree passed in favour of the decree holder, it was open for the State Government or its officials to dispossess the decree holder by following the due process of law. Thus, for taking possession of the disputed property, it is not necessary for the State Government to issue fresh notification of acquisition. In the instant case, the petitioners being officials of the State Government have attempted to take forcible possession of the disputed property, without due course of law and in this process, they have demolished the boundary wall and main gate of the disputed property and caused loss to the decree holder, for which they were having no authority. In the instant case, the petitioners being officials of the State Government have attempted to take forcible possession of the disputed property, without due course of law and in this process, they have demolished the boundary wall and main gate of the disputed property and caused loss to the decree holder, for which they were having no authority. Therefore, the Executing Court, in its discretion, was fully justified in ordering for payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner to meet the interest of justice. 11. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the decree passed in favour of the decree holder is without jurisdiction and same is nullity, therefore, it cannot be executed. He argued that once the land was acquired and possession of the same was taken, then no civil suit was maintainable and the decree passed in the suit for permanent injunction is wholly without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 340 (1) and State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and others, 1995 PLJ 517 (Supreme Court). In my opinion, this question does not arise in the instant case. The State Government was the party in the suit, which was hotly contested and the issue of jurisdiction was raised, which was decided against the defendants. The said decree has attained finality, as no appeal was filed against the same by any of the defendants. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, this plea is not available to the petitioners, who are officials of the State Government, and who have attempted to take forcible possession of the disputed property, on behalf of the State Government. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed.