High Court admonishes Punjab for scuttling land compensation decree execution

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come down heavily on Punjab for attempting to thwart the execution of a decree in a land compensation matter that had attained finality. Terming the state’s stand “highly deplorable”, Justice Pankaj Jain of the high court ruled that a revision petition filed in the matter by Punjab was “nothing, but a ploy at the hands of state to scuttle the decree".

Dismissing the revision petition, Justice Jain asserted that the act of the state to disobey a decree passed by a competent court was “evident”. The ruling is significant as it says the state cannot devise excuses or take refuge in technicalities to avoid compliance once a decree has attained finality.

The case has its genesis in a civil suit filed by a plaintiff-respondent, which was decreed and subsequently upheld up to the high court in a regular second appeal. The decree-holder, thereafter, filed an execution petition. The state contended that the executing court should have deployed police personnel for handing over possession as the land stood acquired.

“The contention raised by the state counsel is that since the decree was to acquire the land and pay compensation within six months or to seek possession thereafter, the executing court should have deployed the police personnel for handing over the possession as the land was acquired,” Justice Jain observed.

The bench added that the state’s stand was that law and order situation would crop up while taking possession as land had been utilised for “creating mettled road, structures like cremation ground, hadda rodi and phirni etc”. “Obviously, at the time of taking possession, public is expected to agitate. Stand taken by the state is highly deplorable,” the court added.

Justice Jain also took note of the reliance placed by the state upon provisions of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961, and the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, to argue that compensation was not payable since the land had been put to common purposes.

Justice Jain, however, rejected the contention after holding it to be “misconceived and misplaced.”

“The contention cannot be considered in view of the fact that the decree has been passed which has attained finality and has not been assailed by the state. The executing court cannot travel beyond decree.”