IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of Decree--A decree passed by the Civil Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, and even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.- Petitioner Mohinder Singh (one of the decree holders) has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 32 and Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for executing the decree dated 17.4.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.285 of 16.4.1986 titled as “Attar Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and another”.

2. Before considering the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner, challenging the aforesaid order, it will be essential to advert to the few facts of the case and the background under which the decree dated 17.4.1992 was passed by the Civil Court.

3. Undisputedly, Attar Singh, father of the petitioner was a big landlord. Vide order dated 5.1.1960, the land measuring 242 kanals 4 marlas owned by him was declared surplus by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Security Act’). The said order became final and the same was not challenged either by the petitioner or by his father and brother Mukhtiar Singh. With the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ceiling Act’), the said land which was declared surplus by the aforesaid order under the provisions of the Security Act absolutely deemed to have been vested in the State of Haryana in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Ceiling Act from the appointed date i.e. 24.11.1971 thereafter the State became the absolute owner of the said land and all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, recognized by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of all persons in such area shall stand extinguished and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from any encumbrance. Subsequently, mutation of the said land was sanctioned in favour of the State of Haryana vide mutation No.351 of 18.04.1982.

4. Thereafter, on 16.4.1986, the petitioner, his father Attar Singh and his brother Mukhtiar Singh filed the aforesaid civil suit challenging the order dated 5.1.1960 passed by the prescribed authority declaring the aforesaid land as surplus, as illegal, null and void on the ground that the prescribed authority has illegally and wrongly passed the said order by ignoring certain facts and certain transfers already made by the big land owners. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.1992 and the order dated 5.1.1960 passed by the prescribed authority was declared null and void and the mutation sanctioned in favour of the State was also declared null and void. The defendants were also restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit land except in due course of law. During the pendency of the said suit, an interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land to any person and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. That injunction was confirmed and remained operative till the passing of the decree.

5. Subsequently after passing of the said decree, the petitioner, his father and brother made efforts to get the mutation with regard to the suit land sanctioned in their favour on the basis of the said decree. When the revenue authorities did not sanction the mutation in their favour on the basis of the said decree, then brother of the petitioner, namely, Mukhtiar Singh filed CWP No.8850 of 1994 in this court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court while observing as under:­

“By virtue of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972, the area declared surplus or tenant’s permissible area under the Punjab law and the area declared surplus under the pepsu law, which has not so far been vested in the State Government, shall be dee