( 1 ) A revision and a Writ Petition raise same question of law. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is unfortunate that neither the State Government nor the Union of India filed any counter-affidavit to the writ Petition and the matter had to be heard without a counter on their behalf. The parties shall be referred to as they appear in the cause title of the Writ Petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioners filed O. S. No. 51/75 before Subordinate Judge, Razole seeking a declaration with respect to the title of the plaint schedule property. The suit property was a piece of land measuring Ac. 2-30 cents. Along with the declaration the petitioners sought a decree for possession and mesne profits as well. The suit was decreed on 12-12-77. The respondents 3 to 7 who were defendants in the suit filed an appeal being A. S. No. 115/78 against the judgment and decree. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 18-6-86. It is contended in the Writ Petition that in october, 1982 when the Amin went to the suit schedule property for effecting the delivery of possession to the petitioners, some persons obstructed the delivery of possession. The petitioners thereafter filed e. A. No. 296/82 in E. P. No. 57/82 for removal of obstruction. The executing court on 23-2-87 dismissed the E. A. No. 296/82 and observed that only symbolic delivery of possession shall be given to the decreeholder. This order of the executing court was challenged in Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 174/93 before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal on 21-7-99. In between the petitioner filed i. A. No. 478/79 for ascertainment of profits from 1972 to 2-8-78. The profits were ascertained upto 2-8-78. The petitioners filed E. P. No. 1/83 and the property to an extent of Ac. 0-60 cents was attached for realization of mesne profits. One Makkapati ratnam filed E. A. No. 76/83 under Order 21 rule 58 of C. P. C. The Court allowed this application. That order was also challenged in the High Court in C. M. A. No. 637/93. The C. M. A was dismissed on 21-7-99. The high Court also dismissed two other c. M. As. 170 and 109 of 1993 which were filed against the orders of the executing court allowing the applications filed by the third parties for raising the attachment. Thereafter the petitioners filed I. A. No. 759/95 for ascertainment of mesne profits from 2-8-78 and for passing of final decree under Order 20 Rule 12 C. P. C. The lower Court by order dated 2-5-97 appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct an enquiry with regard to the mesne profits relating to the schedule property from 2-8-78 till the filing of I. A. No. 759/95. This order has been challenged by way of C. R. P. No. 5197/97. This Court admitted this revision on 27-12-97 and granted interim order.

( 3 ) THE main ground of attack to the impugned order of the trial Court in the revision petition is that, in terms of Order 20 rule 12 (1) (c) (iii) of Code of Civil Procedure mesne profits could not be granted beyond three years from the date of decree having been passed. Order 20 Rule 12 of C. P. C. is reproduced;"12. Decree for possession and mesne profits. (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the court may pass a decree (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing any enquiry as to such rent; (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits; (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until (i) the delivery of possession to the decreeholder; (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment- debtor with notice to the decreeholder through the Court, or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs". After this rev