J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This order will also dispose of Civil revisions Nos. 2597, 2793, 2549, 2550 and 2554 of 1987 as the question involved is common in all these cases.
(2.) All these petitions are directed against the order of the executing Court whereby objections filed on behalf of the Union of India to the execution application, filed on behalf of the claimants were partly accepted and partly dismissed. The main controversy between the parties in this case was whether the land of the decree holder falls within 500 meters from fencing of the Cantonment or not ? According to the claimant decree holder, the land acquired by the Union of India fell within 500 meters from fencing of the Cantonment whereas the Union of India contested hat this land does not fall in that belt. It was the decree of this Court passed in F. A.O. No. 423 of 1984 decided on 16th Oct., 1984 which was being sought to be executed by the decree holder. According to the executing Court, it has the power to interpret the decree and, therefore, while interpreting the decree of this Court, the executing Court has found that the claimant has failed to prove that his land is within 500 meters from the municipal limits/fencing of the Cantonment. It has been further found by the executing Court that no evidence has been brought by the decree holder that there was a municipal limit adjacent to the land of the decree holder and neither he has proved that there was a fencing at that place.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the executing Court was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. There was no question of interpreting the decree of the High Court as such. Rather the matter has been cleared by the High Court with the following observations:- "2. The learned counsel for the claimants have pointed out that there is slight confusion in the description of the first "item for which the value has been fixed by the Arbitrator at the rate of Rs. 16.80 per Sq. Yard. This matter was put to the counsel for the respondents. After considering this matter, I am of the opinion that there is some confusion in the description of the first item. Accordingly, the description is modified as follows:- JUDGEMENT_104_LAWS(P&H)1_19891.html;