GOPAL KRISHAN SABHARWAL Vs. SAHIB DAYAL
LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-60
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 03,2009

Gopal Krishan Sabharwal Appellant
VERSUS
SAHIB DAYAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. DHIRENDRAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

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 judgment and decree became final, as no appeal was filed by the State against the same.
It is the case of the decree holder that subsequently, 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. 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed 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.
(3.)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.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.