- (1.) The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 22.11.2012 passed in execution of the award passed by the reference Court as enhanced in the Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent No.2 and the State counsel, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. It has been observed by the Executing Court that the execution stands already satisfied in terms of the order 17.01.2006. This is quite a strange observation of the Execution Court as the order dated 17.01.2006 passed by the Executing Court was set aside by this Court on 18.05.2009 which was not assailed further. While setting aside the order dated 17.01.2006, this court dealt with the controversy between the parties elaborately and it was ultimately held as under:- " The impugned order is not sustainable because as per decree dated 23.01.1982, Bachan Singh got only 1/6th share in 30 kanals 17 marlas land, whereas 1/6th share therein equal to 05 kanals 03 marlas remained with Joginder Singh as affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.1999. In addition to it, decree dated 23.01.1982 in favour of Bachan Singh does not relate to land measuring 01 kanal 03 marlas of khasra no. 57. Therefore, Bachan Singh is not entitled to compensation for 01 kanal 03 marlas land of khasra No.57 and is also not entitled to compensation for 05 kanals 03 marlas land being 1/6th share of 30 kanals 17 marlas land which remained with Joginder Singh. In other words, the petitioner, who is successor in interest of Joginder Singh, is entitled to compensation for 05 kanals 03 marlas land as 1/6th share of 30 kanals 17 marlas land mentioned above and is also entitled to compensation of 1/3rd share of 01 kanal 03 marlas land of khasra no. 57. In all, petitioner is, therefore, entitled to compensation for 05 kanals 11 marlas land instead of 03 kanals 14 marlas land determined by the Executing court vide impugned order dated 17.01.2006. In addition to other land, Bachan Singh is entitled to compensation for 05 kanals 03 marlas land only out of 30 kanals 17 marlas mentioned above and Bachan Singh is not entitled to any compensation for 01 kanals 03 marlas land of khasra no. 57 in view of decree dated 23.01.1982, as also ordered in earlier C.R. No. 735 of 1992 vide order dated 20.01.1993 (Annexure P-4). In view of above, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.1.2006 of learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra is set aside and it is held that out of 30 kanals 17 marlas land mentioned above, petitioner and respondent No. 2 each shall be entitled to compensation for 1/6th share thereof and petitioner alone shall be entitled to compensation for 1/3rd share of land measuring 01 kanals 03 marlas comprising in khasra no. 57 mentioned above. Necessary calculation and apportionment shall accordingly be done by the Executing court."
(3.) The Executing Court has rather not made any attempt to implement the aforesaid decision categorically directed by this Court in the order Annexure P-7. The Executing Court has observed as under in the impugned order: "There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the decree-holder that he is entitled to compensation from the date of notification as this question has been dealt with by the court vide order dated 17.1.2006. This cannot be re-agitated. When the share has been enhanced and the amount has already been deposited, the state cannot be burdened further with interest of any other liability as no fault can be attributed to the state. The order in the revision which led to the filing of the execution petition again does not say about the payment of interest etc. from the very beginning. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the decree-holder is entitled to the amount already deposited by the judgment debtors in terms of the award and the said amount be refunded to the decree-holder in terms of award subject to furnishing of indemnity bond. In view of this, the execution petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.";