The enforceability of a decree can be affected by legislative bars, and the period of limitation for execution of a decree begins when the decree becomes enforceable.

R.M. Savant, J.

1. Admit.

2. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.

3. The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 30-8-2011 passed by the Learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Solapur, by which order the application Exhibit 30 filed by the Respondents who are the decree holders for appointment of the Court Commissioner for carrying out the work of execution of the Sale Deed, came to be allowed.

4. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus:

The Respondents herein are the original Plaintiffs who had filed Special Civil Suit No.90 of 1972 for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the Sale Deed of land bearing block No.22/2 admeasuring about 3 Hectors and 84 Ares situated at Village Umarga, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur. It is not necessary to refer to the intervening facts. Suffice it to say that the Suit came to be decreed in favour of the Respondent No.7. The Defendants to the said Suit i.e. the Applicants herein filed two First Appeals being Nos.208 of 1978 and 213 of 1978, in this Court. The said First Appeals came to be dismissed by this court on 3-12-1991 and 4-12-1991, respectively. After the dismissal of the First Appeals, the Plaintiffs filed Regular Darkhast No.187 of 1997 seeking execution of the said decree dated 26-6-1977. It appears that a part of the land covered by the decree was notified for acquisition under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the irrigation project known as Kunnur project. In view of the land being notified, the prohibition or bar to transfer the land covered by the notification came into operation by virtue of the mandate of Section 11 of the said Act. In view thereof in the said Darkhast the Defendants i.e. the Applicants herein executed a Sale Deed dated 5-8-1998 of only 1 Hector 43 Ares as the said portion of land was not covered by the notification. In so far as the notification under the said Act is concerned, it is required to be noted that a mutation entry being No.260 came to be effected in the revenue record on 27-7-1998 declaring that the lands have been notified for acquisition. It seems that the land admeasuring 1 Hector and 43 Ares in respect of which a Sale Deed was executed, was so executed by the Defendants by obtaining permission of the Collector of Solapur in respect of the block No.22/2, which was not notified for acquisition.

5. In so far as the prohibition bar placed by Section 12 of the said Act is concerned, the Collector Solapur, by notification dated 29-5-2004 lifted the restriction on transfer of the lands covered by the notification and the mutation entry to the said effect came to be effected in the revenue record on 24-6-2004 vide mutation entry No.369. Hence during the period 27-7-1998 up to 29-5-2004 the decree could not be executed in so far as part of the land i.e. 2 Hector and 42 Ares is concerned, in view of the legislative bar imposed by Section 12 of the said Act. After the prohibition bar came to be removed in respect of lands covered by the notification, the Plaintiffs filed an application for execution in respect of the balance land admeasuring 2 Hectors and 42 Ares being Special Darkhast No.78 of 2007, in the said execution application the Plaintiffs have referred to the antecedents facts of there being a legislative bar to the execution of the decree and have thereafter sought execution of the decree in respect of the balance portion of land. In the said Special Darkhast in view of the objection of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have filed an application for appointment of the Court Commissioner for execution of the Sale Deed in their favour. It is the said application Exhibit 30 which has been decided by the impugned order. The said application was opposed to on behalf of the Defendants by contending that on the notifi