JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri S. Shekhar, learned standing counsel for the petitioners judgment debtors. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that according to the respondent decree holder, his Sankramaniya Bhoomidhari land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis being khasra plot Nos.32, 33 and 2/851 situate in village Korath, Tehsil Bah, District, Agra was occupied and a canal under "Chambal Dal Pariyojna" was constructed over it. The aforesaid scheme was notified in the year 1987. Since the petitioners judgment debtors illegally, unauthorisedly and unconstitutionally occupied the land of the respondent decree holder and constructed a canal over it, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff-decree holder started agitating. He approached the authorities several times but nothing was done. Ultimately, he filed O.S. No. 553 of 1997, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 27.03.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Agra. Issue No. 1 was framed to the effect as to whether land of the respondent decree holder measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis of khasra plot Nos. 32, 33 and 2/851, has been taken by the petitioners judgment debtors in construction of canal This issue was decided in affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent decree holder and against the petitioners judgment debtors. Other issues were also decided by the trial court in favour of the respondent decree holder. The operative portion of the judgment dated 27.03.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No. 5, Agra, in O.S. No. 553 of 1997, is reproduced below: ^^vkns'k oknh dk okn Áfroknhx.k ds fy, vkaf'kd :i ls okLrs vkns'kkRed O;kns'k bl vk'k; ls vkKIr fd;k tkrk gS fd Áfr oknhx.k oknh dh pEcy Mky ifj;kstuk ds rgr ugj fuekZ.k esa yh xbZ 1&10&5 Hkwfe ds laca/k esa Hkw&vtZu vf/kdkjh ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj mDr Hkwfe dk eqvkotk oknh dks fu;ekuqlkj fu.kZ; dh fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj vnk djuk lqfuf'pr djsa vU;Fkk oknh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd og fu;ekuqlkj mDr eqvkotk dh /kujkf'k U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls Áfroknhx.k ls ÁkIr dj ysA ekeys ds rF; ,ao ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vk;k okn O;; viuk viuk Lo;a ogu djsaxsA fnukad & 27-03-2010 lqUnjyky vij flfoy tt ¼lhŒfMŒ½ d{k la[;k&5] vkxjk fu.kZ; vkt esjs }kjk [kqys U;k;ky; esa fnukafdr ,oa gLrk{kfjr djds lquk;k x;kA fnukad % 27-03-2010 lqUnjyky vij flfoy tt ¼lhŒfMŒ½ d{k la[;k&5] vkxjkA** 3. The suit was decreed in respect of total area measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the petitioners judgment debtors filed a Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011, State of U.P. and Others vs. Bheem Singh, which was decided by judgment dated 22.04.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Agra. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below: ^^vkns'k vkyksP; fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k fnukafdr 27-03-2010 vkaf'kd :i ls la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vihykFkhZx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls rhu ekg ds vanj ÁR;qRrjnkrk@oknh dh xkVk la[;k 32] 33 o 02@851 fLFkr xzke dksjFk] rglhy ckg] ftyk vkxjk dh ugj gsrq Á;ksx dh x;h Hkwfe dk oknh@ÁR;qRrjnkrk iqjkus Lo:i esa dCtk Ánku djsa vU;Fkk ÁR;qRrjnkrk@oknh U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls Hkwfe dk dCtk ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA Ádj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k mijksDr rhu ekg dh vof/k esa oknxzLr lEifRRk dks Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vf/kxzg.k dh dk;Zokgh ;fn iw.kZ djuk pkgs rks dj ldrs gSA rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA mHk;i{k viuk&viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA fnukad&22-04-2013 ¼vk'kh"k xxZ½ vij ftyk tt dksVZ uaŒ&5] vkxjk vkt ;g fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kfjr o fnukafdr dj mn?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA ¼vk'kh”k xxZ½ vij ftyk tt dksVZ uaŒ&5] vkxjkA** 4. The petitioners judgment debtors accepted the aforesaid judgment passed by the appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011. But they took no action to comply with the judgment within the time allowed by the appellate court. Consequently, the respondent decree holder started pursuing the Execution Case No. 19 of 2010. It would be relevant to mention that as per decree, the suit of the respondent decree holder was decreed for 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis land and the decree was accordingly prepared. 5. Nothing was done by the petitioners judgment debtors and no compensation was paid to the respondent decree holder even after his struggle of about 29 years. On 02.12.2016, the petitioners judgment debtors moved an application 61-ga through A.D.G.C. (Civil), Agra mentioning therein that out of the land of khasra plot Nos. 32, 33 and 2/851, belonging to the respondent decree holder, merely 0.075 hectare land was used for Chambal Dal Pariyojna for which the petitioners judgment debtors are ready to pay compensation. On 02.12.2016, the petitioners judgment debtors moved an application 61-ga through A.D.G.C. (Civil), Agra mentioning therein that out of the land of khasra plot Nos. 32, 33 and 2/851, belonging to the respondent decree holder, merely 0.075 hectare land was used for Chambal Dal Pariyojna for which the petitioners judgment debtors are ready to pay compensation. The aforesaid application 61-ga dated 02.12.2016 is reproduced below: ^^U;k;ky; Jheku r`rh; vij flfoy tt ¼lhŒfMŒ½ vkxjk fu"iknu okn la[;k&19 lu 2010 Hkhe flag & fMØhnkj cuke mŒÁŒ ljdkj o vU; & en;wux.k fMØhnkj ds }kjk ekaxh x;h eqvkotk /kujkf'k ds lEca/k esa vkifRr egksn;] fuosnu gS fd mDr Ádj.k esa fMØhnkj dh d`f"kdh; Hkwfe [kljk la[;k 32] 33 ,oa 2@85 ds dqy {ks=Qy esa ls {ks=Qy 0-075 gsDVs;j fLFkr xzke dksjFk] rglhy ckg] ftyk vkxjk dks en;wux.k }kjk pEcy Mky ifj;kstuk dks vf/kxzghr dj pEcy Mky ifj;kstuk dk dk;Z o"kZ 1992 esa iw.kZ fd;k FkkA {ks=Qy ds laca/k esa rglhynkj ckg vkxjk ds }kjk vij ftykf/kdkjh Á'kklu vkxjk dks fnukad 27-04-2015 dks Hksth fjiksVZ dh Nk;kÁfr dks 'kiFki= ds lkFk layXu cuk;k x;k gSA ;g fd mDr lEifRr dk eqvkotk ÁkIr djus ds fy, flfoy okn oknh@fMØhnkj }kjk nk;j fd;k x;k rFkk orZeku esa fMØhnkj dk fu"iknu okn ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA mDr fu"iknu okn esa fMØhnkj }kjk viuh d`"kdh; Hkwfe dk eqvkotk eqŒ 27]40]000@& :i;s ekaxk x;k gSA mlesa ;g Li"V ugh fd;k x;k gS fd og fdl x.kuk ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS] mDr /kujkf'k vf/kxzghr Hkwfe ds {ks=Qy ds vuqlkj dkQh vR;f/kd gSA vuqlkj dsoy 4]06404@& :i;s gksrh gS] ftlds lEca/k esa en;wux.k }kjk vij ftykf/kdkjh Hkwfe v/;kfIr vkxjk }kjk vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark yksvj [k.M] vkxjk ugj vkxjk dks fy[ks x;s i= fnukad 09-09-2013 esa fn;s x;s fn'kkfunsZ'kksa dh Nk;kÁfr ,oa mDr i= ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 31-12-2003 ds i= esa dh xbZ x.kuk lEca/kh i= dh Nk;kÁfr dks 'kiFki= ds lkFk layXu fd;k x;k gSA ;g fd en;wux.k mDr x.kuk ds vuqlkj eqvkotk /kujkf'k eqŒ 4]06]404@& :i;s nsus ds fy, rS;kj gS] fMØhnkj }kjk ekaxh x;h eqvkotk /kujkf'k 27]40]000@& :i;s ij en;wux.k viuh vkifRr fMØhnkj }kjk fn;s x;s la'kks/ku ÁkFkZuki= dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds ckn ÁLrqr dh tk jgh gSA vr% Jhekuth ls ÁkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij fMØhnkj dh eqvkotk /kujkf'k 4]06]404@& :i;s la'kksf/kr djkus dh d`ik djsa] rkfd fMØhnkj dh eqvkotk /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk ldsA fnukad 02&12&2016 en;wux.k lanhi dqyJs"B ,MoksdsV lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼flfoy½A** 6. This application appears to be based merely on a communication of the office of the District Magistrate, Agra being letter No. 818/Gramin Ceiling Anubhag dated 02.05.2016 in which it has been mentioned that only an area 0.075 hecate of khasra plot Nos. 32, 33 and 2/851 was affected by canal which is not within ceiling limit. The said application filed in Execution Case No. 19 of 2010, was disposed of by the court of Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No. 3, Agra directing for immediate payment of compensation to the respondent decree holder in accordance with the provisions of new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 for 0.075 hectare land. Consequently, the respondent decree holder filed an application under Sections 151/152 C.P.C. for rectification of the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2017. Consequently, the respondent decree holder filed an application under Sections 151/152 C.P.C. for rectification of the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2017. The aforesaid application of the respondent decree holder dated 04.08.2017 (Paper No. 78ga) filed in Execution Case No. 19 of 2010, is reproduced below: ^^U;k;ky; vij flfoy tt ¼lhŒfMŒ½ r`rh; vkxjk btjk; uaŒ 19 lu~ 2010 ewy okn la[;k 553 lu~ 1997 vihy uaŒ 229 lu~ 2011 Jh Hkhe flag & oknh@fMØhnkj cuke mŒÁŒ ljdkj vkfn & Áfroknh@en;wuku 'kiFk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 151] 152 lhŒihŒlhŒ fnukad 19-05-2017 ds vkns'k esa la'kks/ku gsrqA Jheku th] ÁkFkhZ@oknh@fMØhnkj fuEu vkosnu djrk gS %& 1- ;g fd mijksDr okn btjk; okn esa ÁkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj gSA okn ds fu.kZ; o fMxzh ds vuqlkj oknh@fMxzhnkj dh en;wuku us Nsn pEcy Mky ifj;kstuk dh ugj cukus esa 1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 32] 33 vkSj 2@851 dh Hkwfe fcuk Hkwfe v/;kfIr vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj d`f"k Hkwfe fcuk vf/kxzg.k fd;s gq, voS/k rjhds ls Hkwfe ij ugj [kksn nh ftlds okn dk fu.kZ; fnukad 27-03-2010 dks gks x;k gS vkSj ftlesa 1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh tehu ugj esa tkuk crk;k x;k gSA ftldh vihy gqbZ ftldk fu.kZ; fnukad 22-04-2013 dks gqvkA mlesa Hkh Hkwfe dk ugj esa vkuk crk;k x;k gSA 2- ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; us d`f"k dk vkSj Qly dh /kujkf'k fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj en;wuku ls fnyk;s tkus gsrq btjk;okn py jgk gSA 3- ;g fd en;wuku us tc okn esa tokc nkok nkf[ky fd;k Fkk] rc mUgksus vius tokc nkos esa oknh dh 0-05 o 0-19 ,dM Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 32] 33 vkSj 2@851 dk {ks=Qy ugj ds fuekZ.k ds mi;ksx djuk dgk Fkk vkSj nwljh rjQ Áfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls ijhf{kr lk{khx.k dh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i=ksa esa 209 oxZ ehVj Hkwfe dk ugj esa tkuk dgk Fkk] ;g ckr vihyh; U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 22-04-2013 esa dgh gSA 4- ;g fd tc oknh@fMxzhnkj }kjk vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; 22-04-2013 vkns'k dk btjk;okn esa la'kks/ku fd;k] rks en;wuku ls viuh la'kks/ku dh vkifRr nkf[ky djds oDr fMxzhnkj ds [kljk uEcj 32] 33 vkSj 2@851 dh dqy {ks=Qy 0-075 gsŒ ¼750 oxZ ehVj½ Hkwfe ugj esa tkuk dgk gSA fu.kZ; Áoj U;k;ky; vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ckn Hkwfe dk u;k tksMk ugha tk ldrk gS D;ksafd eqdnek esa fu.kZ; gks pqdk gSA 5- ;g fd Áfroknh@en;wuku us tks ugj esa tehu {ks=Qy 0-075 gsDVs;j tks en;wuku us crk;k gS] ml tehu dk ewY; 4]06]404&00 :i;s crk;kA nksuks U;k;ky;ksa esa okn pyus ds ckn vkSj nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk fu.kZ; vkus ds ckn fu"iknu okn esa en;wuku }kjk ugj esa x;hA 1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh d`f"k Hkwfe dh txg 0-075 gsDVs;j d`f"k Hkwfe ugj esa tkuk ugha ik;k tk ldrk gS vkSj tc bjkt;okn esa nkf[ky vkifRr ds vuqlkj crk;s x;s {ks=Qy ds vuqlkj mruh Hkwfe dk iSlk ugha fy;k tk ldrk gSA 6- ;g fd en;wuku }kjk nkf[ky vkifRr vkSj oknh@fMxzhnkj }kjk nkf[ky vkifRr ds ,sRkjkt ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa lquokbZ gqbZ rks nksuksa i{kksa ds lkeus cgl ds nkSjku ;g ckr r; gks x;h Fkh fd eqvkotk jkf'k nkf[ky fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh dh u;s lfdZy jsV tks orZeku esa gS] vkSj Qly vkfn ds [kpsZ orZeku jsV ls fn;s tk;saxsA ysfdu ekuuh; U;k;ky; us en;wuku }kjk viuh vkifRr ds vuqlkj d`f"k Hkwfe ds {ks=Qy 0-075 gsDVs;j dks ugj esa tkus vkSj d`f"k Hkwfe dk ewY; 4]06]404&00 :i;s d`f"k ds vuqlkj eqvkotk jkf'k tek djus ds vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2017 dks ikfjr dj fn;sA tks fd xyr vkSj =qfViw.kZ gSA tcfd d`f"k Hkwfe dk ewY; tks ugj esa fMxzhnkj dh x;h gS] mldk jdck 1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh dk 27]40]000@& :i;k curk gSA 7- ;g fd fu"iknu okn U;k;ky; us voj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27-03-2010 fMxzh vkSj fu.kZ; gsrq vkns'k o vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 22-04-2013 dks xkSj u djrs gq, vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2017 ikfjr dj fn;k tks fd xyr o =qfViw.kZ gS D;ksafd fMxzhnkj@oknh dh ugj esa tks d`f"k Hkwfe x;h gS] og fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh tkuk dgk x;k gSA blfy, fnukad 19-05-2017 dks ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'k esa voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fMxzh o fu.kZ; o vihyh; vkns'k voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fMxzh o fu.kZ; o vihyh; U;k;ky; ds vkaf'kd :i ls la'kksf/kr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj la'kks/ku fd;k tkuk vko';drk gS vkSj ikfjr vkns'k esa ugj esa x;h d`f"k ds {ks=Qy 0-075 gsDVs;j dh txg fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh U;k;fgr esa fy[kk tkuk vko';d gSA vr% Jheku th ls ÁkFkZuk gS fd fnukad 19-05-2017 dks ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'k esa ugj esa x;h d`f"k Hkwfe jdck 0-075 gsŒ dh txg voj U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o fMxzh o vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj jdck ^^1 ch?kk 10 fcLok 5 foLokalh** djus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsaxsA fnukad 04-08-2017 oknh@fMxzhnkj Hkheflag }kjk LkR; Ádk'k xqIrk ,MoksdsVA** 7. The aforesaid application 78-ga was allowed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No. 3, Agra by the impugned order dated 18.08.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2017, the petitioners judgment debtors filed a Civil Revision No. 141 of 2017, State of U.P. and Others vs. Bheem Singh, which was dismissed by the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Agra by judgment dated 10.07.2018 observing that the area 0.075 hectare mentioned in the order dated 19.05.2017 was due to clerical/typographical error and therefore, the error was lawfully rectified by order dated 18.08.2017. Aggrieved with these two orders dated 18.08.2017 and 10.07.2018, the petitioners judgment debtors have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned standing counsel submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as the land used for construction of canal, was merely 0.075 hectare and, therefore, the respondent decree holder is not entitled for compensation of 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis land in execution proceedings. 9. On a pointed query made by this court to the learned standing counsel as to whether the land of the respondent decree holder has been acquired as per liberty granted by the appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011, State of U.P. and Others vs. Bheem Singh, the learned standing counsel states that as per his instructions, no acquisition of the respondent decree holder's land has been made by the State Government so far. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:- 10. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned standing counsel for the petitioners judgment debtors. 11. This petition is a glaring example of high-handedness, arbitrariness and illegal approach of the authorities of the State Government and breach of Article 300A of the Constitution of India by them. 12. It is undisputed that an area measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis of khasra plot Nos. 32, 33 and 2/851 of village Korath, Tehsil Bah, District, Agra, is owned by the respondent-decree-holder. It is admitted case of the petitioner-judgment debtors that without any acquisition and without payment of any compensation, the aforesaid land of the respondent decree-holder was occupied and a canal under "Chambal Dal Pariyojna" was constructed over it. The "Chambal Dal Pariyojna" was notified in the year 1987 and it was completed in the year 1992. It is admitted case of the petitioner-judgment debtors that without any acquisition and without payment of any compensation, the aforesaid land of the respondent decree-holder was occupied and a canal under "Chambal Dal Pariyojna" was constructed over it. The "Chambal Dal Pariyojna" was notified in the year 1987 and it was completed in the year 1992. Since the petitioners-judgment debtors illegally, unauthorisedly and unconstitutionally occupied the land of the respondent-decree holder and constructed a canal over it, therefore, the respondent-decree holder represented before the State-authorities. Since nothing was done by the State-authorities, therefore, the respondent-decree holder filed O.S. No. 553 of 1997 for permanent injunction and recovery of possession of the aforesaid disputed land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis or pay its compensation and costs. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 22.04.2013. The petitioners-judgment debtors filed a Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011, State of U.P. and Others vs. Bheem Singh in which the judgment of the trial court was affirmed and it was ordered that the petitioners-judgment debtors shall, within three months restore the disputed land in its original position and shall handover its possession to the respondent decree-holder otherwise the respondent-decree holder shall be entitled to obtain possession through court within three months. The appellate court granted liberty to the petitioners-judgment debtors that if they want, they may acquire the disputed land and complete the acquisition proceedings within three months. Undisputedly, the petitioners-judgment debtors have not utilized the liberty granted by the appellate court. The disputed land of the respondent-decree holder has not been acquired so far. 13. Neither disputed land of the respondent-decree holder has been acquired nor he has been paid so far any compensation nor its possession has been restored to the respondent-decree holder by the petitioners-judgment debtors who are dragging him (respondent-decree holder) in luxurious litigation from about 29 years. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit in respect of the disputed land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis has attained finality inasmuch as the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011, State of U.P. and Others vs. Bheem Singh dated 22.04.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioners-judgment debtors. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit in respect of the disputed land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis has attained finality inasmuch as the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011, State of U.P. and Others vs. Bheem Singh dated 22.04.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioners-judgment debtors. Instead of satisfying the decree, the petitioners judgment-debtors, despite being the State Government and thus a responsible litigant under the State Litigation Policy; are making every effort to deprive illegally the respondent decree-holder from getting the fruits of the decree. It appears that under some mistake, the execution court passed an order dated 19.05.2017 in which the area of the land was mentioned as 0.075 hectare instead of 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis. Therefore, the respondent-decree holder moved an application for correction which was allowed by the impugned order dated 18.08.2017 on the finding that it was a clerical/ typographical error. Civil Revision No. 141 of 2017 filed by the petitioners-judgment debtors has been dismissed by the competent court by the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2018. Nothing has been brought on record that the decree of the trial court for the disputed land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis, has been set aside or modified by any higher court. Under the circumstances, the executing court has not committed any manifest error of law to correct the area of the disputed land wrongly mentioned in the order dated 19.05.2017. 14. It has been held in Challamane Huchha Gowda vs. M.R. Tirumala and Another, (2004) 1 SCC 453 (paragraph 9) that execution is the enforcement by the process of court of its order and decree. It is settled law that execution court cannot go behind decree unless it is shown that it is passed by Court having inherent lack of jurisdiction or is void ab-initio which could make it nullity. The executing court must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit. It is settled law that execution court cannot go behind decree unless it is shown that it is passed by Court having inherent lack of jurisdiction or is void ab-initio which could make it nullity. The executing court must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Topanmal Chhotamal vs. M/s Kundomal Gangaram and Others, (1960) AIR SC 388, Deepa Bhargava and Others vs. Mahesh Bhargava and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 294 , J&K Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Jagdish C. Gupta, (2004) 10 SCC 568 (Paragraph-2), Hiralal Moolchand Doshi vs. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas, (1993) 2 SCC 458, Sunder Dass vs. Ram Prakash, (1977) 2 SCC 662 , Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Modern Construction and Company, (2014) 1 SCC 648 , State Bank of India vs. M/s Indexport Registered and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 159 , Bhawarlal Bhandari vs. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises, (1999) 1 SCC 558 , C. Ganga Charan vs. C. Narayanan, (2000) 1 SCC 459 . 15. In the case of Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 (Paragraph-25), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is a settled legal proposition that the executing court does not have the power to go behind the decree. Thus, in absence of any challenge to the decree, no objection can be raised in execution. State of Punjab vs. Mohindeer Singh Randhawa, (1993) Supp 1 SCC 49." 16. The O.S. No. 553 of 1997 filed by the respondent decree holder was contested by the petitioners judgment debtors. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 27.03.2010. The decree was passed by the trial court for an area of 1 Bigha 10 Biswas and 5 Biswansis; land of Khasra plot Nos. 32, 33 and 2/851 of village Korath, Tehsil-Bah, District Agra, which was occupied by the petitioners judgment debtors illegally, unauthrisedly and in breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, about 29 years ago. The petitioners judgment debtors have dragged the poor farmer, i.e. the respondent-decree holder in litigation for last 29 years. The decree passed by the trial court has attained finality. The petitioners judgment debtors have dragged the poor farmer, i.e. the respondent-decree holder in litigation for last 29 years. The decree passed by the trial court has attained finality. Neither acquisition of the suit property has been made nor any compensation has been paid by the petitioners judgment debtors to the respondent decree holders so far. The order dated 19.05.2017 in Execution Case No. 19 of 2010 was lawfully corrected by the impugned order dated 18.08.2017. Thus, the present petition is a frivolous petition filed knowingly by the petitioners/ judgment debtors in continuity of their highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional actions. Such a petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost in view of the land laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Atma Singh Grewal, (2014) 13 SCC 666 and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar, (2017) 5 SCC 496 (Paras-9 to 14). 17. For all the reasons afore-noted and discussion made, I hold that the present petition is a frivolous petition. The petitioners judgment debtors are abusing the process of court and have dragged poor farmer/respondent decree holder in litigation from more than 29 years. The petitioners judgment debtors have breached the provisions of Article 300A. The land of the respondent decree holder has been taken away by the petitioner judgment-debtors without any acquisition and without payment of any amount towards compensation. Therefore, it deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 18. In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court commended all courts to deal with frivolous filings, firmly and impose exemplary costs. For ready reference, relevant portion of the judgment in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra), (Paras 12, 13 and 14), is reproduced below:- "12. This case indicates a blatant abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners not only took the benefit of an order of the High Court granting them one year's time to vacate the premises but obtained a further extension of a period of four months to vacate. This case indicates a blatant abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners not only took the benefit of an order of the High Court granting them one year's time to vacate the premises but obtained a further extension of a period of four months to vacate. The petitioners then filed a Review Petition before the High Court and moved another application, this time seeking an extension of five years to vacate the premises. The time of the High Court and, unfortunately, of this Court as well had to be devoted to a thoroughly frivolous proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners in fact sought to urge that as a result of the judgment of the City Civil Court, the petitioners have been deprived of establishing that their status as licensees fructified into a tenancy with effect from 1 February 1973. Quite apart from the fact that such a plea would not be open to the petitioners in the background of what has been observed earlier, we find even on merits that the submission requires only be stated to be rejected. We have extracted in the earlier part of this judgment the specific finding of the Trial Court based on the admissions of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that the premises were granted to them on the basis of a conducting agreement. Besides this, in the earlier proceeding that was instituted in the Small Causes Court, it was found that the premises have been granted under a conducting agreement and there was no relationship of licensor and licensee. That being the position, the petitioners would not acquire status as tenants with effect from 1 February 1973, there being no licence in their favour. 13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 14. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner." 19. The principles laid down in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra), have again been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Co-op. L&C Federation Ltd. vs. Unique Co-op. L&C Co-op. Society Ltd. (2018) 14 SCC 248 (Paras 16 & 17) while dismissing the appeal of the Haryana State Coop. L&C Federation Ltd. (supra) with exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lacs. 20. The principles laid down in the aforequoted judgment in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra) and principles laid down in Haryana State Co-op. L&C Federation Ltd. (supra), on the point of frivolous petition, are well attracted on the facts of the present case. 21. In the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the imposition of exemplary costs and its recovery from such officers who take frivolous decisions of filing appeals and held as under: "14. No doubt, when a case is decided in favour of a party, the Court can award cost as well in his favour. It is stressed by this Court that such cost should be in real and compensatory terms and not merely symbolic. There can be exemplary costs as well when the appeal is completely devoid of any merit. Rameshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 . However, the moot question is as to whether imposition of costs alone will prove deterrent We do not think so. We are of the firm opinion that imposition of cost on the State/PSU's alone is not going to make much difference as the officers taking such irresponsible decisions to file appeals are not personally affected because of the reason that cost, if imposed, comes from the government's coffers. Time has, therefore, come to take next step viz. We are of the firm opinion that imposition of cost on the State/PSU's alone is not going to make much difference as the officers taking such irresponsible decisions to file appeals are not personally affected because of the reason that cost, if imposed, comes from the government's coffers. Time has, therefore, come to take next step viz. recovery of cost from such officers who take such frivolous decisions of filing appeals, even after knowing well that these are totally vexatious and uncalled for appeals. We clarify that such an order of recovery of cost from the officer concerned be passed only in those cases where appeal is found to be ex-facie frivolous and the decision to file the appeal is also found to be palpably irrational and uncalled for." 22. In view of the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred three judgments, I find that the present frivolous petition deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. Liberty is granted to the Uttar Pradesh State-Government to recover the costs from such officers who took decision of filing this frivolous petition. 23. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- with liberty to the State-Government to recover the costs from the officers concerned, who took decision to file this frivolous petition. The costs shall be deposited by the petitioners judgment debtors within one month from today with the court below and on such deposit, the respondent decree-holder shall be entitled to withdraw it. 24. Let a copy of this order be sent by Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow for necessary action.