The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's emphasis on the due process of law, dispensation of justice, and the acknowledgment of the petitioners' rights as per the law.

JUDGMENT

Fateh Deep Singh, J. - The then petitioners Vimla Devi and her husband Harkishan Lal (now both deceased and being represented through their sons) have come up in this revision petition against Municipal Committee/Municipal Council, Jalalabad (West) (in short, 'the Committee'). The brief background of this litigation is that the Committee in the year 1997 had carved out streets and in the process illegally and without any authorization and without adopting due process of law had taken over 5 Kanals of land belonging to the petitioners for which they did not even compensate them. On 28.12.1987, the petitioners filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the Committee to assess the compensation and which suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated21.12.1993. The first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.11.2019 though dismissed the appeal but modified the order directing the Committee to implement the building scheme in letter and spirit. RSA was disposed off by this Court on 12.05.2000 and on 12.12.2020 the Committee filed an SLP before the Supreme Court which remitted back the matter for deciding the appeal afresh. This Court in RSA No. 1872 of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2000 directed the Committee to assess the compensation and pay the same to the petitioners. Again the Committee preferred an SLP on 17.08.2009 before the Supreme Court and this SLP bearing No.21854 of 2009 was dismissed and so its review. It is subsequent thereto on 13.04.2011 the petitioners filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner directing the SDM for immediate action.

2. When nothing transpired, on 28.07.2011 contempt petition was filed against the Committee for non compliance of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Committee in its reply admitted and undertook to assess the compensation and to pay the same. In spite of the same, nothing material transpired and the execution was filed before the Executing Court at Jalalabad on 28.07.2012 to which the Committee filed objections and it was after a long battle on 03.07.2014 Land Acquisition Collector cum SDM Jalalabad made a statement before the Executing Court that publication of notification for acquisition of the land has been forwarded to the Director, Local Govt. Punjab and inbetween all sorts of recourses were adopted by the Committee to dillydally the matter and in spite of the orders having elapsed after filing of the execution application, nothing transpired and which kept on being adjourned on one pretext or the other and the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC remained in limbo throughout.

3. A civil revision was filed before this Court bearing No.352 of 2021 for expediting the execution process but to no avail and this is precisely the relief that the present revisionists are seeking in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for directing the Executing Court Jalalabad (West) to dispose off the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (2) CPC read with Order 21 Rule 11 CPC in a time bound manner.

4. Upon hearing Mr. CM. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate representing respondent No.l and perusal of the records.

5. What one can decipher that since the year 1987 the revisionists are being put to undue harassment by the Committee and the officers manning the same in the Headquarters and after 39 years the poor litigants are still seeking justice after having won the battle and so passing away of the main litigants leaves an indelible mark on the insolence and the casual approach of the Courts in not coming to the aid of a litigant who in spite of having won his battle is still unable to reap its benefits.Since admittedly it is the established and proven fact that the revisionists are owners of the land which the State had usurped on its own by mere illegal exercise of its powers against the canons of justice and thus, undermines the very due process of law and dispensation of justice.