JAGPALversusUTTAR PRADESH SARKAR AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      CIVIL REVISION No. - 85 of 2021

Jagpal
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus

Uttar Pradesh Sarkar And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Rajiv Gupta, Sindhuja Rathi Bhargava,
                                Vibhu Rai, Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhupeshwar Dayal, C.S.C.

Court No. - 54
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Ram
Murat, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1-State. Shri
Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 is present.

2. This civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the
judgment and order dated 26.3.2021 passed by Additional District
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST 2 Act), Meerut whereby the Executing Court
has rejected the Execution Case No.1 of 2009 (Khairati Lal vs. State of
U.P.) as well as the application dated 01.08.2018 of the decree holder and
accepted the objections of the judgment debtors.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to
by their nomenclature as assigned in the decree. The revisionist is the
decree-holder and the respondents are the judgment-debtors.

4. Briefly stated, Land Acquisition Reference No.83 of 1998 in respect of
an award passed by Land Acquisition Authority in favour of the
revisionist travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was decided in
Appeal No. 8891 of 1995. The said appeal was disposed of by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in April 1997 whereby the amount of compensation was
enhanced with a direction to pay an interest of 12% upon the awarded
compensation. In order to obtain enhanced compensation amount,
Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 was filed by the revisionist/decree
holder before the trial court. In the said execution petition, calculation and
assessment for the period in between 18.03.2002 to 29.06.2002 were
submitted before the Executing Court. The amount in light of the
                                                           CLRE No. 85 of 2021
                                2


directions of the Executing Court was deposited on 17.07.2003 and the
execution petition was disposed of by holding that the same has been
deposited on the satisfaction of the decree holder/revisionist.

5. Thereafter, another Execution Petition No. 1 of 2009 (Khairati Lal Vs.
State of UP) was filed by the present revisionist/decree holder claiming
therein that 12% interest for the period of 1841 days were not paid in the
earlier Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 and same should be paid to the
decree holder. Said execution petition was dismissed on 26.3.2021 by the
Executing Court by holding that earlier Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998
was disposed of upon the satisfaction of the decree holder himself and no
objection thereto was raised at that time and no liberty to decree holder
was granted to re-open the execution case by putting fresh claims.
Aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2021 passed in Execution Petition
No. 1 of 2009, this present Civil Revision has been preferred.

6. It was submitted that the decretal amount along with 12% interest, as
directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, remained unpaid in earlier Execution
Petition No. 9 of 1998 and the present Execution Petition No. 1 of 2009
was filed by the revisionist/decree holder with a view to recover the same.
However, the Executing Court, without adverting to the fact that the
directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court were not fully complied with in the
earlier Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998, dismissed his execution petition
without any cogent reasons. The right of the revisionist does not
extinguish merely because his prayer was not considered in that earlier
petition due to certain inadvertence. Hence, the impugned order dated
26.03.2021 passed by the Executing Court is liable to be set aside and the
remaining amount due to be paid to the revisionist/decree holder be paid
to him in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the
Executing Court has discussed the reasons for dismissing the execution
petition. It has also held that the earlier execution petition filed on behalf
of the revisionist was decided after the revisionist/decree holder himself
expressed his satisfaction upon the award made by the Executing Court
and subsequently deposited by the State. Therefore, the revisionist/decree
holder cannot re-agitate any grievance regarding unpaid amount by filing
a fresh execution petition once the earlier execution petition was disposed
                                                          CLRE No. 85 of 2021
                               3


of on his own satisfaction.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgment.

9. It is very much apparent that the proceedings in this case have been
pending since long and Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 was finally
decided in the year 2003, i.e. on 21.07.2003. The said period itself
manifests that execution proceedings in the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court kept pending for nearly five years. Therefore, the
revisionist cannot raise a ground that he remained unaware of his rights
for such a long period, particularly when the execution petition itself was
filed with a prayer to pay the compensation in the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10. Moreover, the said execution petition was decided in the year 2003
and this fresh execution petition was filed after a period of 6 years in the
year 2009. It is trite law that where no limitation has been prescribed by
any statute, the party seeking remedy under such statute or law is under
obligation to seek remedy within a reasonable time. Section 5 of the
Limitation Act excludes any limitation in respect of the execution
proceedings, particularly carried out under Order XXI of CPC. Although
the execution proceedings initiated for the recovery of compensation
amount in land acquisition cases cannot be strictly held within the
purview of Order XXI CPC, but there is no denial of the fact that
execution proceeding in any case shall be preferred before a court within
a reasonable period.

11. In the present case, once the Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998 was
finally decided in the year 2003, if there was any grievance regarding the
arrears of compensation which remained unpaid, the same could have
been raised by the revisionist/decree holder within a reasonable time.
Hence, the finding of the Executing Court dismissing the present
execution petition on the ground that the revisionist had not been given
any liberty in the earlier disposed of execution petition to file a fresh
execution petition, does not suffer from any infirmity. This Court is also
of the view that if there was any grievance regarding the decision passed
in Execution Petition No. 9 of 1998, it was open for the revisionist to file
a subsequent execution petition within a reasonable period, but the
                                                                                           CLRE No. 85 of 2021
                                                                  4


                                    present execution petition was filed after a lapse of about six years.
                                    Therefore, the finding recorded by the Executing Court in its order dated
                                    26.03.2021 cannot said to be perverse or illegal.

                                    12. In view of the aforesaid, this civil revision is dismissed and the
                                    impugned order of the Executing Court is upheld.



                                                                                          (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    September 10, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad