Some among the judgment debtors (19 to 21) who are proceeded against in execution of a decree have filed the above revision challenging the order of learned Sub Judge, Kozhikode, directing delivery of the decree schedule property. State is the decree holder, and the decree executed in which the above order was passed arose from a suit filed under Section 11 of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964, for short, the `Act', for recovery of possession of an extent of 4200 acres of land in Wayanad District, which, under a notification issued has already vested with the Government under the above Act.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision can be summed up thus: Suit was filed by the State to recover the aforementioned land vested with the Government under the Act seeking also compensation for damages alleged to have been caused by the defendants who continued in unauthorised occupation. That suit instituted in 1969 before the Sub Court, Vadakara was later transferred to Sub Court, Kozhikode and re-numbered as O.S.No.153 of 1972. Suit was dismissed. That decree was challenged in appeal by the State/plaintiff before this Court. Appeal was allowed upholding the plaint claims. Some of the defendants preferred a further appeal to Apex Court, but that was dismissed. The decree becoming final, State -decree holder moved for execution.

3. In the present revision, we are concerned only with the order passed in E.P.No.335 of 1996 by the learned Sub Judge directing delivery of the property. Previously, when an order of delivery was passed by the execution court, that was challenged before this Court by the same revision petitioners in a revision numbered as C.R.P.No.1520 of 1999. That revision was disposed by order dated 26th November, 2001 setting aside the order of delivery passed by the execution court and remitting the case for fresh disposal. In the above revision execution of the decree was challenged by some of the judgment debtors, present revision petitioners, contending that the proceedings taken to execute the decree are without jurisdiction banking upon Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. The bar of jurisdiction of civil courts covered by the above section of that Act "to entertain any suit or other legal proceedings for the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any land which is the property of Government" would apply to the execution proceedings taken in the present case for executing the decree to recover the lands involved from the judgment debtors who continue in unauthorised occupation of such lands was the challenge pressed into service. A further challenge had also been canvassed that the decree passed in the suit overlooking the above section of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act was without jurisdiction and thus a nullity, but, it was rejected by this Court as one without merit. So far as the challenge raised over jurisdiction of the civil court to execute the decree canvassed on the premise that 'execution proceedings' would fall within the word `proceedings' covered by Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, this Court has directed the execution court to examine that question setting aside the order passed for delivery of the property. In paragraph 12 of the order passed in the revision, this Court has observed as follows for issuing the above direction.

"12. The suit having been filed prior thereto, the contention that the decree is a nullity based on Section 20A has therefore, to be rejected as one without force. But then, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that even if the decree has been validly passed and the decree is not invalid for that reason, still a court cannot execute a validly passed decree at the instance of the State so long as the bar created under Section 20A continues to be in force. It is his argument that the word "no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding (emphasis