The party responsible for satisfying a land acquisition decree can be held liable, and execution can proceed if there is no stay on the decree.

Per Syed Bashir-ud-Din J

1. Heard.

2. Union of India, through Defence Estates Officer Srinagar, the indenting Department, acquired 9 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land under Survey No. 134 situated at** Sonawar, Srinagar through State Acquisition Collector Respondent No. 1. After the Collector made the award, reference under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act was made to District Judge, Srinagar way back in March, 1991. The reference court enhanced the compensation and passed a decree in terms of Award in Feb. 98. The claimant, Respondent No. 1, filed an Execution Petition in the Court for realisation of awarded decretal compensation for the land. The decree has been party satisfied by making part payment. However, for the remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 15,51,975/- the executing court of 4th Addl. District Judge, Srinagar after giving opportunity to respondents to comply with the decree and make the payments, finally attached the amount from the Accounts Head of the*Office of Defence Estate Officer, Shivpora, Srinagar. The Defence Estates Officer lateron issued two cheques and the Nazir of the Court is under orders to take and present cheques before the Bank and to deposit the amount in the Court for disbursement to the claimant to satisfy the decree in the said execution proceedings. As a step in aid of execution for ensuring satisfaction of the decree, a non-bailable warrant was also issued against respondent No. 2 (Defence Estates Officer) for producing the said officer before the court on 12.06.99. These orders of attachment and deposit of the amount in court, the issuance of bailable arrest warrant against respondent to the award/execution proceedings and arraying Defence Estates Officer as party to the Execution proceedings, are challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the attached amount could not have been siphoned off from the funds of Defence Estates Officer to satisfy the decree. Besides, there was no decree against the writ petitioner and decree was against only the Collector Land Acquisition. Only the amount for rental and other expenses for management purpose could have been taken to satisfy the decree and not the salary amount in the accounts of the petitioner. The executing court ought not to have ordered execution when the CIA is pending against the very judgment and award of 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar before High Court.

3. In reply, acquisition of land, initiation of acquisition proceedings by the Collector Land Acquisition Srinagar, at the instance of Defence Estates Officer Kashmir, Circle Srinagar, award on Collector and final award of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Judge Srinagar are not in dispute. It is also admitted that an appeal against the judgment and decree in terms of award is pending before High Court. The respondents, however contest the stand of the petitioners that a writ petition could lie either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that on merits of the fact situation and circumstances of the case, the matter cannot be examined by this court under writ jurisdiction, as same is not substitute of appeal or revision. The matter is already pending in appeal before the proper forum, therefore going to factual and other aspects of the award and judgment in the writ jurisdiction, when the statutory appeal is pending is not justified.

4. It is further contended that the entire acquisition proceedings right from the year 1978 have been initiated through the Defence Estates Officer Kashmir Circle, Srinagar as the officer of indenting department of Ministry of Defence of the Union of India. The Defence Estates Officer has been party to the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act. He has filed objections before the District Court and he had appeared in the proceedings. The writ petitioner Defence Estates Officer at no point took any objection before any forum that it is not a