AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Pursuant to an award given in favour of one of the parties in land acquisition proceedings, which were conducted under the U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1985 read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the matter went before the learned Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, who had finally passed the order dated 12.04.2006. Subsequently, the matter went for execution before the executing court. Both the parties have given their own calculation before the executing court. The executing court vide its order dated 15.06.2015 has rejected the most of the calculation given by the present revisionist and has agreed with the calculation given by the private respondent.
It is again an admitted fact that the solatium which was initially awarded at the rate of 33% was reduced by the High Court to 30%. Barring this change, there is no change in the award.
Thereafter, the executing court has come to the conclusion that on the basis of award a sum of Rs. 6,17,550/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty only) is liable to be given to the decree holder by the revisionist.
Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all questions relating to execution of decree have to be seen by the executing court. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:
“47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree. (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
[Explanation I. — For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II. — (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]”
From a perusal of the order dated 18.12.2015 read with detail order dated 15.06.2015, I am of the considered view that the executing court has passed the orders in letter and spirit of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Consequently, no interference is called for by this Court. Civil Revision is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Let the amount deposited by the revisionist before this Court be transferred to the executing court, which shall be withdrawn by the private respondent in accordance with law.