Union Of India vs Phool Singh & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 4158 Del

$~
16
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      EX.F.A. 16/2010

                                  Date of decision: 8th September, 2010

       UNION OF INDIA                             ..... Appellant
                     Through:           Ms. Deepika, Adv.

                      versus



       PHOOL SINGH & ORS                            ..... Respondents
                    Through:            None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

       1.        Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
                 the judgment?                                 YES

       2.        To be referred to the Reporter or not?         YES

       3.        Whether the judgment should be reported        YES
                 in the Digest?

                               JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL).

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated

12th April, 2010 passed by the Court of Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, ADJ,

Delhi in Execution Petition No.122/08/94 (New No. Ex.M-16/10) with

LAC No.48/68, village Khampur Raya, having case titled as Phool

Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India.

2. The facts, as are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the

present appeal are that the land owners had approached the Court

of Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act

(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for enhancement of

compensation as the land owners were not satisfied with the

compensation granted to them by the Land Acquisition Collector.

3. The learned Court of ADJ while passing the decree under

Section 18 of the said Act had enhanced the amount to be

paid to the land owners. The land owners further went in appeal

before this Court which was finally decided and the judgment and

decree was drawn on 14th April, 1980 by this Court.

4. The respondents thereafter filed an execution petition on the

28th July, 1994 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 14th

April, 1980 passed by this Court.

5. Thereafter, vide order dated 4th January, 2010 the Executing

Court ordered for attachment of the bank account of LAC West and

remittance of the amount to the Court. It is only thereafter that the

appellant herein moved an application under Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawal of the attachment order

dated 4th January, 2010 and for stay on the ground that the

execution petition filed before the Executing Court reveals that the

judgment was passed on 14th April, 1980 by this Court and the

execution was filed on 28th July, 1994, after a lapse of more than 14

years from the date of the judgment.

6. Vide the impugned order, the Executing Court had dismissed

the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, as aforesaid, filed on behalf of the appellant.

7. It is seen that the execution has been pending since 2000

which was finally disposed of on 23rd January, 2010. Notice of this

execution was served in the office of the LAC and his representatives

used to appear on some occasion but no objection was taken at

any stage that execution could not proceed further being time

barred. It is also seen that the application under XXII Rule 3 was

moved on behalf of the Legal Representatives of the

deceased/Decree Holder and in pursuance of notice of those

applications the LAC submitted the reports, but even at that time no

objection about the time barred execution or time barred

applications were filed on behalf of the present applicant.

8. It is observed that most of the original Decree Holders have

expired and execution was prosecuted by the Legal Representatives

of the deceased/Decree Holder. This was so because the payment by

the LAC under the decree was not made by the Judgment Debtor for

about 15-16 years. It is only thereafter that order levying

attachment of the bank account of the LAC was passed. A copy of

the notice of attachment was served in the office of the LAC and he

was directed to file objections, if any, on or before 23rd January, 2010

but no such objection was filed in time and the application resulting

in the impugned order was filed only on 25th February, 2010. Thus,

it is obvious and the record clearly demonstrates that at each and

every step there is delay and laches on the part of the LAC.

9. The learned Executing Court vide the impugned order

condoned the limitation on the verbal request made on behalf of the

Decree Holders. The learned Executing Court further held that the

Legal Representatives of the Decree Holders are the laymen and

poor villagers who could not get the compensation amount in

respect of the land belonging to their predecessor-in-interest. The

learned Executing Court also came to the conclusion that

since no objection was raised by the Judgment Debtor at any stage

and the application was moved only after the disposal of the

execution, it has been made belatedly and was devoid of merits.

10. In my view, the Judgment Debtor should have deposited the

decreed amount in the Court, but for almost 20 years it took no such

steps, resulting in compelling the Executing Court to issue warrants

of attachment of the bank account of the Judgment Debtor to

recover the amount.

11. It is only after a long lapse from the date of filing of the

execution and only when attachment had been levied did the

appellant herein move the application resulting in the impugned

order, for dismissal of the execution petition and for injuncting the

release of payment under the decree.

12. In the instant matter it is seen that the Decree Holder and

their Legal Representatives, who are coming to the Court for the last

few decades, are now being asked to forgo their compensation even

though they have lost their lands.

13. In the circumstances, the appellant/Judgment Debtor cannot

be allowed to use the land without paying anything, on technical

grounds or some lapses committed on behalf of the Decree Holders.

14. In view of the above, I see no infirmity in the order passed by

the learned Executing Court so as to warrant interference of this

Court in appeal. Before parting, it should also be pointed out that

although the Executing Court vide the impugned order had directed

that the payment lying in the Court be released to the Decree

Holders only after the expiry of two months from the date of the

impugned order to enable the Judgment Debtor to file an appeal

before the High Court, even then the present appeal has been filed

belatedly with an application for condonation of delay.

15. In the circumstances, the appeal is devoid of merits and is

hereby dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

SEPTEMBER 08, 2010 dn