HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL REVISION No. - 85 of 2021 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Ram Murat, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1-State. Shri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 is present. 2. This civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2021 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST 2 Act), Meerut whereby the Executing Court has rejected the Execution Case No.1 of 2009 (Khairati Lal vs. State of U.P.) as well as the application dated 01.08.2018 of the decree holder and accepted the objections of the judgment debtors. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their nomenclature as assigned in the decree. The revisionist is the decree-holder and the respondents are the judgment-debtors. 4. Briefly stated, Land Acquisition Reference No.83 of 1998 in respect of an award passed by Land Acquisition Authority in favour of the revisionist travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was decided in Appeal No. 8891 of 1995. The said appeal was disposed of by Hon'ble Supreme Court in April 1997 whereby the amount of compensation was enhanced with a direction to pay an interest of 12% upon the awarded compensation. In order to obtain enhanced compensation amount, Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 was filed by the revisionist/decree holder before the trial court. In the said execution petition, calculation and assessment for the period in between 18.03.2002 to 29.06.2002 were submitted before the Executing Court. The amount in light of the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajiv Gupta, Sindhuja Rathi Bhargava, Vibhu Rai, Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhupeshwar Dayal, C.S.C. Jagpal .....Revisionist(s) Uttar Pradesh Sarkar And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) directions of the Executing Court was deposited on 17.07.2003 and the execution petition was disposed of by holding that the same has been deposited on the satisfaction of the decree holder/revisionist. 5. Thereafter, another Execution Petition No. 1 of 2009 (Khairati Lal Vs. State of UP) was filed by the present revisionist/decree holder claiming therein that 12% interest for the period of 1841 days were not paid in the earlier Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 and same should be paid to the decree holder. Said execution petition was dismissed on 26.3.2021 by the Executing Court by holding that earlier Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 was disposed of upon the satisfaction of the decree holder himself and no objection thereto was raised at that time and no liberty to decree holder was granted to re-open the execution case by putting fresh claims. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2021 passed in Execution Petition No. 1 of 2009, this present Civil Revision has been preferred. 6. It was submitted that the decretal amount along with 12% interest, as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, remained unpaid in earlier Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 and the present Execution Petition No. 1 of 2009 was filed by the revisionist/decree holder with a view to recover the same. However, the Executing Court, without adverting to the fact that the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court were not fully complied with in the earlier Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998, dismissed his execution petition without any cogent reasons. The right of the revisionist does not extinguish merely because his prayer was not considered in that earlier petition due to certain inadvertence. Hence, the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Executing Court is liable to be set aside and the remaining amount due to be paid to the revisionist/decree holder be paid to him in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the Executing Court has discussed the reasons for dismissing the execution petition. It has also held that the earlier execution petition filed on behalf of the revisionist was decided after the revisionist/decree holder himself expressed his satisfaction upon the award made by the Executing Court and subsequently deposited by the State. Therefore, the revisionist/decree holder cannot re-agitate any grievance regarding unpaid amount by filing a fresh execution petition once the earlier execution petition was disposed CLRE No. 85 of 2021 2 of on his own satisfaction. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 9. It is very much apparent that the proceedings in this case have been pending since long and Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 was finally decided in the year 2003, i.e. on 21.07.2003. The said period itself manifests that execution proceedings in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court kept pending for nearly five years. Therefore, the revisionist cannot raise a ground that he remained unaware of his rights for such a long period, particularly when the execution petition itself was filed with a prayer to pay the compensation in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. Moreover, the said execution petition was decided in the year 2003 and this fresh execution petition was filed after a period of 6 years in the year 2009. It is trite law that where no limitation has been prescribed by any statute, the party seeking remedy under such statute or law is under obligation to seek remedy within a reasonable time. Section 5 of the Limitation Act excludes any limitation in respect of the execution proceedings, particularly carried out under Order XXI of CPC. Although the execution proceedings initiated for the recovery of compensation amount in land acquisition cases cannot be strictly held within the purview of Order XXI CPC, but there is no denial of the fact that execution proceeding in any case shall be preferred before a court within a reasonable period. 11. In the present case, once the Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 was finally decided in the year 2003, if there was any grievance regarding the arrears of compensation which remained unpaid, the same could have been raised by the revisionist/decree holder within a reasonable time. Hence, the finding of the Executing Court dismissing the present execution petition on the ground that the revisionist had not been given any liberty in the earlier disposed of execution petition to file a fresh execution petition, does not suffer from any infirmity. This Court is also of the view that if there was any grievance regarding the decision passed in Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998, it was open for the revisionist to file a subsequent execution petition within a reasonable period, but the CLRE No. 85 of 2021 3 present execution petition was filed after a lapse of about six years. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Executing Court in its order dated 26.03.2021 cannot said to be perverse or illegal. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this civil revision is dismissed and the impugned order of the Executing Court is upheld. September 10, 2026 SK CLRE No. 85 of 2021 4 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad