CR-857-202 243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Pathankot Improvement Trust through its Chairman Bhagwant Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : HARKESH MANUJA, laid to an order dated 19.10.2024 passed by District Judge Executing Court, Pathankot 2. awarded Pathankot, respondent No.1 sought reference which came to be adjudicated upon by the District Judge Trust Tribunal, Pathankot the following reliefs: 2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date Pathankot Improvement Trust through its Chairman VERSUS Bhagwant Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sunder Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been an order dated 19.10.2024 passed by District Judge Executing Court, Pathankot. Briefly stating, feeling dissatisfied awarded on account of acquisition Pathankot, respondent No.1 sought reference which came to be adjudicated upon by the District Judge Trust Tribunal, Pathankot vide order dated 07.10. the following reliefs:- “22. In view of my findings this application is accepted with costs. The applicants are entitled for Rs.1,16,200/ marla as compensation of acquired land. They are also entitled for 12% increase on the market IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R-857-2025 Date of Decision: 10.02.2025 Pathankot Improvement Trust through its Chairman ...Petitioner ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA r. Dharam Vir Sharma, Sr. Advocate with s. Sunder Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been an order dated 19.10.2024 passed by District Judge-cum dissatisfied with the compensation acquisition of land situated in Village Pathankot, respondent No.1 sought reference which came to be adjudicated upon by the District Judge-cum-President, Improvement vide order dated 07.10.2022, while granting view of my findings on the above said issues, this application is accepted with costs. The applicants are entitled for Rs.1,16,200/- per as compensation of acquired land. They are also entitled for 12% increase on the market ...Respondents By way of present revision petition, challenge has been cum- the compensation Village Pathankot, respondent No.1 sought reference which came to be President, Improvement while granting on the above said issues, this application is accepted with costs. The per as compensation of acquired land. They are also entitled for 12% increase on the market SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-857-202 3. execution, wherein the petitioner/ judgment debtor (JD) failed to deposit even a single penn landowner/ decree holder (DH) to file application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC for directing the JD to furnish the details of properties. The said application Executing Court vide its order dated 19.10.2024 disposed of the said application 2025 (O&M) [2] value for the period com the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the Award of the Collector or taking possession which ever is earlier under Section 23 (1) (A) of the Act, solatium @ 30%, interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and @ p.a. for the subsequent years till the payment of amount. However, the amount of the award will be adjusted to the extent, the Collector has already awarded any compensation, which have been received by the applicant. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.3,0 prepared. File be arranged, indexed, compiled and consigned to the Record Room.” Based thereupon, the landowner/ respondent No.1 sought execution, wherein the petitioner/ judgment debtor (JD) failed to deposit even a single penny thereby compelling respondent No.1 landowner/ decree holder (DH) to file application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC for directing the JD to furnish the details of properties. The said application was opposed at the instance of JD by filing reply. The ng Court vide its order dated 19.10.2024 disposed of the said application with the following observations: “5. As earlier, this Court has already attached the property on 01.01.2024 duly reflected in order dated 15.01.2024. However, JDs are objecting to the earlier attachment on the ground that major part of the attached property does not belong to Judgment debtors i.e. Improvement Trust Pathankot. The part of the property is sold in open auction and part of it is sold by way of value for the period commencing on land from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the Award of the Collector or taking possession which ever is earlier under Section 23 (1) (A) of the Act, solatium @ 30%, interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and @ 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till the payment of amount. However, the amount of the award will be adjusted to the extent, the Collector has already awarded any compensation, which have been received by the applicant. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.3,000/-. Memo of costs be prepared. File be arranged, indexed, compiled and consigned to the Record Room.” Based thereupon, the landowner/ respondent No.1 sought execution, wherein the petitioner/ judgment debtor (JD) failed to y thereby compelling respondent No.1 landowner/ decree holder (DH) to file application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC for directing the JD to furnish the details of properties. The was opposed at the instance of JD by filing reply. The ng Court vide its order dated 19.10.2024 disposed of the said with the following observations:- As earlier, this Court has already attached the property on 01.01.2024 duly reflected in order dated 15.01.2024. However, JDs are objecting he earlier attachment on the ground that major part of the attached property does not belong to Judgment debtors i.e. Improvement Trust Pathankot. The part of the property is sold in open auction and part of it is sold by way of mencing on land from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the Award of the Collector or taking possession which ever is earlier under Section 23 (1) (A) of the Act, solatium @ 30%, 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till the payment of amount. However, the amount of the award will be adjusted to the extent, the Collector has already awarded any compensation, which have been received by the applicant. Counsel fee is . Memo of costs be prepared. File be arranged, indexed, compiled Based thereupon, the landowner/ respondent No.1 sought execution, wherein the petitioner/ judgment debtor (JD) failed to y thereby compelling respondent No.1- landowner/ decree holder (DH) to file application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC for directing the JD to furnish the details of properties. The was opposed at the instance of JD by filing reply. The ng Court vide its order dated 19.10.2024 disposed of the said As earlier, this Court has already attached the property on 01.01.2024 duly reflected in order dated 15.01.2024. However, JDs are objecting he earlier attachment on the ground that major part of the attached property does not belong to Judgment debtors i.e. Improvement Trust Pathankot. The part of the property is sold in open auction and part of it is sold by way of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-857-202 4. submits that since the reference seeking enhancement was invoked at the instance of respondent No.1/ landowner after around 05 years of the award dated 26.07.2011, the Reference Court committed an illegality wh dated 07.10.2022 passed by the District Judge Improvement Trust Tribunal, Pathankot could not be executed. 5. gone through 6. cannot travel beyond the decree/ award passed by the Reference 2025 (O&M) [3] allotment and lottery and s use as Gair Mumkin Rasta/ Sarak. It is also objected that some of the property is purchased by different persons cannot be put to sale. 6. As per the properties attached by this court are claimed to be purchased by others and properties have been allotted to other persons. In fitness of thing, it would be best that the judgment debtors are directed to declare the properties which are in their ownership and possession and not allotted or sold to anyone else. Hence, the earlier a be withdrawn and JDs are directed by this order to disclose the properties in their ownership and possession by way of affidavit. The application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that since the reference seeking enhancement was invoked at the instance of respondent No.1/ landowner after around 05 years of the award dated 26.07.2011, the Reference Court committed an illegality while entertaining the reference petition and thus the award 07.10.2022 passed by the District Judge Improvement Trust Tribunal, Pathankot could not be executed. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book. As per the settled cannons of law, the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree/ award passed by the Reference allotment and lottery and some part of it is public use as Gair Mumkin Rasta/ Sarak. It is also objected that some of the property is purchased by different persons cannot be put to sale. As per the properties attached by this court are claimed to be purchased by others and properties have been allotted to other persons. In fitness of thing, it would be best that the judgment debtors are directed to declare the properties which are in their ownership and possession and not allotted or sold to anyone else. Hence, the earlier attachment is ordered to be withdrawn and JDs are directed by this order to disclose the properties in their ownership and possession by way of affidavit. The application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that since the reference seeking enhancement was invoked at the instance of respondent No.1/ landowner after around 05 years of the award dated 26.07.2011, the Reference Court committed an ile entertaining the reference petition and thus the award 07.10.2022 passed by the District Judge-cum-President, Improvement Trust Tribunal, Pathankot could not be executed. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and As per the settled cannons of law, the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree/ award passed by the Reference ome part of it is public use as Gair Mumkin Rasta/ Sarak. It is also objected that some of the property is purchased As per the properties attached by this court are claimed to be purchased by others and properties have been allotted to other persons. In fitness of thing, it would be best that the judgment debtors are directed to declare the properties which are in their ownership and possession and not allotted or sold to anyone ttachment is ordered to be withdrawn and JDs are directed by this order to disclose the properties in their ownership and possession by way of affidavit. The application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC is disposed of with Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that since the reference seeking enhancement was invoked at the instance of respondent No.1/ landowner after around 05 years of the award dated 26.07.2011, the Reference Court committed an ile entertaining the reference petition and thus the award President, I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and As per the settled cannons of law, the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree/ award passed by the Reference SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-857-202 Court and thus no such plea as raised by the learned Senior counsel can be entertained at this stage in a civil revis execution proceedings. 7. appears to be most justifiable as the JD has mer disclose the property under its ownership and possession by way of filing an affidavit 8. order dated 19.10. revision petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 9. disposed of. 10.02.2025 sanjay 2025 (O&M) [4] Court and thus no such plea as raised by the learned Senior counsel can be entertained at this stage in a civil revis execution proceedings. Moreover, the order passed by the Executing Court appears to be most justifiable as the JD has mer disclose the property under its ownership and possession by way of filing an affidavit. Thus, finding no illegality or perversity with the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the revision petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10.02.2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? Court and thus no such plea as raised by the learned Senior counsel can be entertained at this stage in a civil revision arising out of the Moreover, the order passed by the Executing Court appears to be most justifiable as the JD has merely been directed to disclose the property under its ownership and possession by way of Thus, finding no illegality or perversity with the impugned passed by the Executing Court, the present revision petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No Court and thus no such plea as raised by the learned Senior counsel ion arising out of the Moreover, the order passed by the Executing Court ly been directed to disclose the property under its ownership and possession by way of Thus, finding no illegality or perversity with the impugned xecuting Court, the present Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.14 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document