RAVI S.DHAVAN, J. - (1.) M /s. Smt. Shakuntala Sharma, Atul Sharma, Hemant Sharma and Km. Anuradha Shar­ma, the last two being minors, have filed the present writ petition against the State of U.P. resisting recovery proceedings for realisation of an amount as may be due and may not have been paid by their ancestor, Jyoti Prasad Sharma. Jyoti Prasad Sharma was a forest contractor and having been successful in bids to cut forest trees, had been assigned a contract. The considera­tion of the entire value of the contract not having.been paid, a suit had been filed by the State of U.P. before the District Judge, Dehradun, being Suit No. 207 of 1968, State of U.P. v. Jyoti Prasad Sharma. This suit was decreed. The claim sought in the plaint was for a sum of Rs. 59, 294/- with interestpendente lite. The State of U.P. had a judgment and the decree in its hand. Having succeeded the fruits of the judg­ment could .be had if the State of U.P. were to put the decree in execution. Whatever the reason, the State of U.P. did not ex­ecute the decree.
(2.) IN the meantime, the defendant Jyoti Prasad Sharma died. Yet, it was en­tirely upon the State of U.P. to execute the decree inasmuch if the action survived against the heirs. Even this recourse was not taken by the State of U.P. With a judgment and decree in its favour of the State of U.P. permitted the benefits of the judgment to lie in cold storage. Instead, took recourse to realisa­tion of the amount under the decree as arrears of land revenue by proceeding under the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. By taking recourse to this measure, Bungalow No. 36, East Canal Road, Dehradun was attached. It is not on record and it is not in issue that even much prior to the filing of the suit this property had been transferred by Jyoti Prasad Sharma to his wife as a gift. The wife of Jyoti Prasad Sharma was Smt. Jayawanti Devi. Jayawanti Devi also died, i ier son also died. Her son was Sri Bhakt Vatsal. Petitioners are the wido.v and progenies of this son of Jyoti Prasad and Jayawanti Devi. Their contention is, that the attachment which is being resorted to by coercive process cannot visit their property. This is the property known as 36, East Canal Road, Dehradun. They con-lend that this was never the estate of Jyoti Prasad Sharma. They contend that it is nobody's case nor in issue and it is accepted on record that this property had been transferred by Jyoti Prasad Sharma much before filing of the suit, to his wife Jayawanti Devi. In the circumstances, taking recourse to attachment of this property, by coercive process, it illegal and without jurisdiction.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that assuming without conceding that the Government may have recourse or for that matter even under the Forest Act, 1927 under Section 82 but the attachment must be caused on the property of the person from whom the money is due. The amount of money which may be due notwithstanding the decree, cannot be recovered from a property which did not belong to Jyoti Prasad Shar­ma. It is submitted that the suit having been decreed the only recourse which the State of U.P. can take it to execute the decree.;