***

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. –

1. This revision petition has been instituted against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sohna/Executing Court in Execution Petition No.14 of 2024, vide which the objections filed by the Judgment debtors-petitioners have been rejected and it has been held that decree is executable in its present form and consequently, warrants of possession have been issued for handing over possession of the suit property measuring 4 marlas to the decree-holder/respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case is that one Civil Suit bearing No.387 of 29.04.1989 was instituted on 24.12.1987 by Mahipal Singh and Pritam Singh against State of Haryana and Haryana Roadways Gurgaon seeking decree for permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering in their possession over land comprising Rectangle No.219, Killa No.23/3(0-4) situated within the revenue estate of Village Sohna, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Plaintiffs in that suit claimed that they are the owners in possession of the said property and defendants want to encroach upon the same without lawfully acquiring it. Defendants took a plea that the suit property was acquired by SDO (Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon for construction of bus stand at Sohna and award has been passed. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.1990 held that the plaintiffs namely Mahipal Singh and Pritam Singh are the owners in possession of the suit property and defendants have failed to establish that the land has been acquired by the State or award has been passed. Rather, it was further held that entire proceedings for acquisition of land have lapsed in view of Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and plaintiffs Mahipal Singh and Pritam Singh were held to be owners in possession of the suit land. Consequently, the suit was decreed and defendants were restrained from interfering in their possession over the suit property, except in due course of law. It was further ordered that if the land is lawfully acquired and compensation amount is deposited in the RD or with the District Judge, in that eventuality, defendants shall be at liberty to take possession of the suit land for the purpose for which it is acquired.

3. Thereafter, Rati Ram, present decree-holder has instituted another suit bearing No.214 of 2016, claiming to have purchased the suit property. Before filing the suit, he filed a Civil Writ Petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court bearing CWP No.18 of 2016 and sought demarcation of the suit property owned by him, i.e. Killa No.23/3,which was adjacent to Killa No.22/3 owned by the transport department/defendants. On the orders of the High Court, the suit property was demarcated and it was found that Transport Department has encroached upon one marla of land and remaining three marlas have been covered by the police post, Sohna without any authority of law by raising a boundary wall in the property of the plaintiff without proper demarcation of the suit property.

4. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sohna, vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2023, decreed the suit and held that plaintiff is at liberty to remove the wall existing on the suit property in due course of law. It was further ordered that if the said land is lawfully acquired and the owners of the suit property have been duly compensated, then in that eventuality, the defendants shall be at liberty to take possession of the suit property for the purpose for which it is acquired. It was further held that as per letter Ex.P1, Land Acquisition Collector has returned the suit property measuring four marlas to the land owners and compensation amount has also been returned on 07.01.2001 to Transport Department. Thereafter, the execution petition was filed for delivery of possession of the suit property in which the objections were moved to the effect that the suit property has already been acquired by the State of Haryana and the judgment and decree under execution is ambiguous and same is not executable. It is also the case of JDs that Mutation No.243634, dated 28.6.2016, has already been sanctioned in favour of Transport Department, according to which the Transport Department is the owner of the suit property and the decree is not executable. The said objections have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.11.2025.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been instituted. Learned state counsel and learned counsel for respondent/decree-holder have been heard and material on file has been perused.

6. Learned State Counsel argued that the State of Haryana had acquired 111 kanal 3 marla land for construction of Sohna bus stand, vide notifications dated 15.09.1980 and 26.09.1980 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereafter, award dated 23.05.1983 was passed. Learned counsel contended that the issue of acquisition of suit property measuring four marlas had earlier arisen in civil suit instituted by Mahipal Singh etc. and the trial Court in the judgment and decree dated 11.09.1990 had expressly preserved the right of the State to take possession in case the land was lawfully acquired and compensation had been deposited. Learned State counsel contended that since land had already been acquired and compensation was duly tendered and deposited with Land Acquisition Collector, the judgment and decree dated 11.09.1990 stood satisfied and no proceedings were initiated by the plaintiffs/decree holdera in that suit to implement the said judgment and decree dated 11.09.1990. Learned counsel further contended that subsequently, present decree holder instituted another suit and the decree dated 27.01.2023 does not contain any positive or mandatory direction against the JD’s for removal of the wall and did not grant possession to the plaintiff and did not authorize execution by issuance of warrant of possession or demolition and decree-holder without seeking any clarification or modification or determination of condition embedded in the decree, straightway filed the execution petition seeking demolition of the boundary wall and delivery of possession whereas the decree in question is ambiguous and is not executable. The Executing Court can execute the decree as it stands and cannot go behind the decree and the judgment and decree under execution does not record any final finding that acquisition proceedings stood quashed, lapsed or rendered nonest and the Executing Court has thus travelled beyond decree thereby committing material illegality. Learned State counsel prayed that petition in hand be accepted and execution petition be ordered to be dismissed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the impugned order is well reasoned and justified and no material illegality or infirmity has been committed while dismissing the objections and petition in hand be dismissed.

8. After going through the material on the file and hearing the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

9. In the earlier suit instituted by Mahipal Singh etc. against the defendants, following order was passed:

“Due to my findings on issues under adjudication, I hereby decree the suit of the plaintiffs with costs and restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession over the land in question except in due course of law. If the land is lawfully acquired and compensation amount is deposited in the R.D. or with the District Judge in that eventuality the defendants shall be at liberty to take possession of the land in question for the purposes, for which it is acquired. Let decree sheet be drawn and the file be consigned to record room.”

10. A perusal of the same shows that defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs Mahipal Singh etc. over the suit land except in due course of law. It was further ordered that if the land is lawfully acquired and compensation amount is deposited in the RD or with the District Judge, in that eventuality, defendants shall be at liberty to take possession of the land in question for the purpose for which it was acquired.

11. Thereafter, the suit was instituted by the present decree-holder and same has been decreed in following terms:

“As a sequel to my findings on above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with no order as to costs to the effect that plaintiff is at liberty to remove the wall on the suit property in due course of law. If the said land is lawfully acquired and the owners of the suit property have been duly compensated then in that eventuality, the defendants shall be at liberty to take possession of the suit property for the purpose for which it is acquired. Decree-sheet be drawn and file be consigned to record room after due compliance”

12. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.01.2023 again shows that while decreeing the suit, plaintiff has been granted the liberty to remove the wall existing over the suit property in due course of law. It has been further ordered that if the said land is lawfully acquired and the owners of the suit property have been duly compensated, then in that eventuality, the defendants shall be at liberty to take possession of the suit property for the purpose for which it is acquired. While giving finding on issue No.1, it has been further held that, as per letter Exhibit P1, Land Acquisition Officer/SDO (Civil) Gurugram, has returned the suit land measuring four marlas to land owners and compensation amount has also been returned to Transport Department on 07.01.2001, which shows that no compensation was paid to the decree holder or his vendors i.e. Mahipal Singh etc. It has been further held that in Mutation No.7191 dated 18.08.1995, suit property has not been included. It is pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction of an Executing Court is circumscribed by the decree under execution and the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree or vary the terms of the decree. However, the Executing Court can only construe the decree to ascertain its true meaning and determine whether it is capable of execution or not. The operative part of the decree has been reproduced above, which shows that there is no ambiguity in the decree and plaintiff has been granted the liberty to remove the wall raised on the suit property in due course of law and encroachment by JD/defendants was established during demarcation. Even compensation in respect of the land which was allegedly acquired in the year 1980 was returned by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Transport Department, which implies that the suit property had not been acquired. The Executing Court cannot reopen the issues i.e. whether the land was acquired or not or whether the acquisition had lapsed or not, as this controversy has already been settled in the judgment and decree dated 11.09.1990 and present decree dated 27.01.2023.

13. The JDs have also referred to Mutation No.24369 dated 28.06.2016 as per which the suit property has been mutated in favour of State. However, learned Executing Court has rightly observed that sanctioning of mutation are for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title. Vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.1990, the vendors of present decree-holder were held to be owners in possession of the suit property. Defendants/JD’s have not been able to show that the land has been acquired and now the suit filed by the present decree-holder has been decreed and trial court has ordered removal of the encroachment/wall made by JDs/defendants. None of these judgments and decrees have been challenged and have attained finality. Learned Executing Court has thus rightly come to the conclusion that the judgment and decree under execution is unambiguous and same is executable and the condition relating to lawful acquisition is a future condition subsequent to passing of the decree and Mutation No.24369 does not affect the enforceability of the decree being a mere fiscal entry without evidentiary value of ownership of defendants/JDs. Learned Executing Court has thus rightly appreciated the facts of the case and material on file while rejecting the objections and there is no reason to take a contrary view.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed.

15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********