Judgment Some among the judgment debtors (19 to 21) who are proceeded against in execution of a decree have filed the above revision challenging the order of learned Sub Judge, Kozhikode, directing delivery of the decree schedule property. State is the decree holder, and the decree executed in which the above order was passed arose from a suit filed under Section 11 of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964, for short, the `Act', for recovery of possession of an extent of 4200 acres of land in Wayanad District, which, under a notification issued has already vested with the Government under the above Act. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision can be summed up thus: Suit was filed by the State to recover the aforementioned land vested with the Government under the Act seeking also compensation for damages alleged to have been caused by the defendants who continued in unauthorised occupation. That suit instituted in 1969 before the Sub Court, Vadakara was later transferred to Sub Court, Kozhikode and re-numbered as O.S.No.153 of 1972. Suit was dismissed. That decree was challenged in appeal by the State/plaintiff before this Court. Appeal was allowed upholding the plaint claims. Some of the defendants preferred a further appeal to Apex Court, but that was dismissed. The decree becoming final, State -decree holder moved for execution. 3. In the present revision, we are concerned only with the order passed in E.P.No.335 of 1996 by the learned Sub Judge directing delivery of the property. Previously, when an order of delivery was passed by the execution court, that was challenged before this Court by the same revision petitioners in a revision numbered as C.R.P.No.1520 of 1999. That revision was disposed by order dated 26th November, 2001 setting aside the order of delivery passed by the execution court and remitting the case for fresh disposal. In the above revision execution of the decree was challenged by some of the judgment debtors, present revision petitioners, contending that the proceedings taken to execute the decree are without jurisdiction banking upon Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. In the above revision execution of the decree was challenged by some of the judgment debtors, present revision petitioners, contending that the proceedings taken to execute the decree are without jurisdiction banking upon Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. The bar of jurisdiction of civil courts covered by the above section of that Act "to entertain any suit or other legal proceedings for the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any land which is the property of Government" would apply to the execution proceedings taken in the present case for executing the decree to recover the lands involved from the judgment debtors who continue in unauthorised occupation of such lands was the challenge pressed into service. A further challenge had also been canvassed that the decree passed in the suit overlooking the above section of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act was without jurisdiction and thus a nullity, but, it was rejected by this Court as one without merit. So far as the challenge raised over jurisdiction of the civil court to execute the decree canvassed on the premise that 'execution proceedings' would fall within the word `proceedings' covered by Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, this Court has directed the execution court to examine that question setting aside the order passed for delivery of the property. In paragraph 12 of the order passed in the revision, this Court has observed as follows for issuing the above direction. "12. The suit having been filed prior thereto, the contention that the decree is a nullity based on Section 20A has therefore, to be rejected as one without force. But then, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that even if the decree has been validly passed and the decree is not invalid for that reason, still a court cannot execute a validly passed decree at the instance of the State so long as the bar created under Section 20A continues to be in force. It is his argument that the word "no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding (emphasis supplied) for eviction of any person" referred to in Section 20A applies to an execution proceeding as well. It is his argument that the word "no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding (emphasis supplied) for eviction of any person" referred to in Section 20A applies to an execution proceeding as well. In other words, if based on a decree, execution is sought for eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of the land which is the property of Government, then the bar created under Section 20A will automatically apply for such execution proceedings. It is also his case that even the proceedings for recovery of any fine assessment or prohibitory assessment or the value of any trees destroyed or appropriated or any compensation or damages payable under this Act or cost of eviction or removal of encroachments or any portion of such fine, assessment, prohibitory assessment, value of trees, compensation, damages or cost cannot also be made in the light of Section 20A. The above argument is not without any force. Though the contention in the counter affidavit that the suit was filed prior to the insertion of Section 20A and therefore the bar under Section 20A will not apply to such a suit is accepted to be a correct position, how far the bar under Section 20A applies to an execution proceedings in view of the express words used in Section 20A that 'no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings' requires consideration. The learned counsel Sri. N. Sugunapalan also contended that the word 'proceedings' includes execution. He relied on the decision reported in Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial & Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Another ( 1993 (2) SCC 144 ) and P.L. Kantha Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ( AIR 1995 SC 807 ) for that purpose. As this contention has not been adverted to by the court below as per the impugned order, I set aside the order of the court below for the limited purpose of considering the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit as aforesaid. I am confirming the order of the court below on all other respects." (underlining supplied) 4. The execution court complying with the direction issued considered executability of the decree afresh with reference to the objection raised by the judgment debtors over the executability of the decree as interdicted by Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. I am confirming the order of the court below on all other respects." (underlining supplied) 4. The execution court complying with the direction issued considered executability of the decree afresh with reference to the objection raised by the judgment debtors over the executability of the decree as interdicted by Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Negativing that objection, the learned Sub Judge held that a combined reading of Section 19 with Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act would spell out that the applicability of the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts can have application only in respect of encroachers of Government land and it has no impact over the executability of the decree covered by the proceedings. In that view of the matter, learned Sub Judge ordered for delivery of the decree schedule property. That order is challenged in this revision by some among the judgment debtors. 5. Learned counsel for revision petitioners argued before me that the execution court has not considered the executability of the decree having regard to the interdiction placed under Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act barring the jurisdiction of civil courts from entertaining any suit or proceedings against any person in respect of unauthorized occupation of Government land. This Court in the previous revision after holding that the challenge against the decree as a nullity has no force has directed the execution court to consider the impact of Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act over the proceedings taken for executing the decree. That was so directed since Section 20A takes within its ambit suit or proceedings, the latter of which, according to counsel, has to be considered independently and separately, as distinct from the validity of the decree. Relying on the very same decisions which had been pressed into service earlier in the previous revision, and, stated in the order passed as well, learned counsel contended that execution court has not considered that question in the proper perspective but he has formed an erroneous conclusion that the scheme covered by the Land Assignment Act, 1960 contemplated eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of Government land and that was not the situation involved in the present case, to order delivery. So much so, the order impugned, which has been passed without complying with the direction issued in the order passed in the previous revision, has to be set aside and the case to be remitted for fresh disposal to comply with such direction in accordance with law, is the submission of the counsel. 6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader contended that there is no merit in the challenges raised in the revision as the decree executed is one passed in a suit under Section 11 of the Act, and provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act have no application to such a suit or over the executability of the decree passed in such suit. 7. Perusing the order passed by this Court in the previous revision, it is noticed that the execution court was directed to consider the challenge canvassed by some of the judgment debtors that the proceedings in execution would fall within the ambit of "proceedings" for eviction of persons in unauthorized occupation of Government land, in respect of which an interdiction against civil court from entertaining such a proceeding is made under Section 20A of the Land Conservancy Act. This Court has not expressed any opinion nor made any observation that proceedings in execution of the decree is to be treated as an independent proceedings without having regard to the validity and binding force of the decree. But there was a direction to the execution court to examine the challenge canvassed questioning the execution proceedings with reference to the word "proceedings" under Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act on the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts in entertaining a suit or proceedings against a person in unauthorised occupation of Government land. The previous revision was disposed of with the aforesaid direction without taking note of the observations/findings made by the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal preferred against the decree passed by this Court upholding the suit claims in favour of plaintiff/State reversing the decision of trial court dismissing the suit. Adverting to the scheme of the Act and also the challenge raised against the decree granted by this Court in appeal, the Apex Court considered the scope and effect of a suit under the Act. Adverting to the scheme of the Act and also the challenge raised against the decree granted by this Court in appeal, the Apex Court considered the scope and effect of a suit under the Act. Challenge against the vesting of land under the Act to Government raised by appellants in the suit which was set up on the basis of reservation made in a judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by them previously by this Court, was found meritless. A writ petition filed by the appellants had been dismissed reserving their right to question the validity of the escheat proceedings and the legality of the orders 'to the extent permissible in law' in the suit which was then pending. That reservation would no way enable them to question the finality of the order passed by the Collector in the suit after it has become final, and on that ground itself the suit filed by the State for recovery of possession has to succeed was the view expressed by the Apex Court. In respect of a suit instituted for recovery of possession of property covered by an escheat order the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act has no applicability at all. Even assuming for the worst that it has applicability that was essentially a question which should have been raised and canvassed by defendants in the suit and not against the execution of a decree which has become final, conclusive and binding. Scheme of the Act empowers the Government to institute a suit for recovery of possession of lands vested to Government from persons in possession thereof. Where the escheat order of the Collector has become final and a suit for recovery of possession in terms of the provisions of that Act has to succeed on that ground alone, and no challenge could be raised even in such suit against the validity of the escheat order, as observed by the Apex court, challenge against the executability of the decree with reference to Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act has no merit at all. Provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act have no application in respect of administration, supervision, custody and disposal of unclaimed property which is governed by the Act. Provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act have no application in respect of administration, supervision, custody and disposal of unclaimed property which is governed by the Act. Where properties of a person who died intestate and leave without heirs escheated to the State and an order thereof has been passed by the competent authority, Collector, in terms of the Act and once that order become final, the Apex Court has stated the suit instituted for recovery of possession has to succeed for that reason alone. The Act itself provides a remedy to any person who is in any way aggrieved by the order of the Collector for transfer of the property to the State. The present revision petitioners have not resorted to such remedies but filed a writ petition, and that writ petition was dismissed allowing them to raise whatever challenges available to question the validity of the escheat proceedings and the legality of the objections 'to the extent permissible under law' in the suit pending. That reservation made in their favour in the writ petition would not enable them to challenge validity of the decision of the Collector made under Section 6 of the Act, when they failed to assail the same in accordance with Sections 7 and 11 of the Act; and, after that order has become final on that basis alone the suit has to succeed, was the view taken by the Apex Court to dismiss the appeal challenging the decree passed in favour of the State allowing recovery of possession of the property. When that be so, challenge against the execution of the decree on the premise that the proceedings in execution are barred under Section 20A of the Land Conservancy Act has no basis or merit. The order of the execution court repelling that objection is approved but for different reasons discussed above. The execution court is directed to take prompt and effective steps for delivery of the property without delay. Revision is dismissed.