- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against order dated 15.4.1994, vide which, objections filed by the petitioner, to the execution application, were dismissed. It is apparent from the records that the respondents filed a suit for possession, claiming ownership of the property, in dispute. It was their case that they were owners and lessees of the property, in dispute, possession of which has forcibly been taken by the petitioner. Their suit was dismissed. However, they succeeded in appeal. Petitioner filed Regular Second Appeal in this Court, which was dismissed on 8.1.1991. THIS Court, while disposing of that RSA, has observed thus:- "Sh.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State of Haryana has stressed that from the evidence produced, it has been established that Haryana State had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Otherwise on the basis of the revenue records, Khema and others were shown to be recorded as owners in the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71. Earlier Gram Panchayat was owner of some plot of land over which a school building was constructed. Some evidence was produced which was not accepted by the Lower Appellate Court that Gram Panchayat had exchanged the suit land with the present plaintiffs. That is a finding of fact which is not open to challenge. Thus the question is as to when adverse possession of State of Haryanadefendant started. Oral evidence on behalf of State of Haryana-defendant was produced to the effect that building of the school was constructed by the Gram Panchayat after passing resolution. Some rooms were earlier constructed and some were constructed in 1969. At this stage it may be stated that such building of the school was not constructed on the suit land with which the present plaintiffs have no concern. The suit land was a vacant piece of land and its possession has to go with the title unless some overt act is proved by the defendant to show the actual physical possession. According to the oral evidence produced by the defendant boundary wall was constructed in 1969 along with one room. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the boundary wall is on the part of the suit land, at the most adverse possession started in 1969. The present suit having been filed in 1974 is obviously within time and the State of Haryana cannot be held to have become owner by adverse possession. The case of the plaintiffs is that when the defendant wanted to raise construction on the suit land, the present suit was filed and an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the defendant from raising any construction thereon in appeal. THIS would show that factually no construction was allowed to be that the entry in favour of the school appeared in the year 1969 in the revenue records. The Panchayat records, resolution and the account of the amount spent on the construction of the school building was the best evidence to prove the time when the construction of the school building was started and completed. Such records were not produced by the defendant, who has not taken over the school, an adverse inference can, thus, be drawn against the defendant in this respect. Oral evidence that the building of the school was constructed 20 years ago is not helpful in deciding the case in hand, as such evidence is not specific regarding raising any construction on the suit land. Such type of general evidence was rightly rejected by the lower Appellate Court."
(2.) JUDGMENT, referred to above, has become final. A specific finding has been given by this Court that the school did not exist over the property, in dispute and further that the respondents were owners of the property, in dispute. When execution was filed, again an objection was raised by the petitioner that the respondents were not owners of the property, which was rightly discarded by the executing Court. Before this Court also, an attempt has been made to place reliance upon certain documents, which could have been produced at the time when trial was going on, to say that the respondents were not owners of the property, in dispute. This Court feels that neither the executing Court nor this Court, at this stage, can start a fresh trial regarding ownership of the property, in dispute, regarding which, orders passed have already become final. It is an established law that the executing Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree. No case is made out for interference in the order passed. Dismissed. However, it is left open to the State Government, to acquire the property, in dispute, as per law, if need be.;