Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the orders dated 03.03.2022 and 04.03.2022 passed by the Executing Court, whereby two separate applications filed at the instance of petitioner/judgment debtor praying for setting aside of the orders dated 20.12.2017 and 15.02.2018 vide which auction was held, besides allowing them to pay the entire balance decretal amount stand rejected.

2. In the present case, the land owned by the private respondents, situated in village Shehzada Nangal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was acquired way back in the year 2005, wherein Award was passed by the Collector @ Rs. 12 Lakhs per acre which came to be enhanced to Rs. 24 Lakh per acre in reference by the Land Acquisition Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2012.

3. During execution proceedings No.1255 of 2013, certain property measuring 21 Kanal, owned by the petitioner-Trust was put to auction on 15.02.2018 in which, one of the decree holders, namely, Paramjit Singh also participated. Though, 25% of the auction amount which was supposed to be deposited by the bidder, in the present case the decree holder-one of the land owners, was exempted therefrom as the enhanced award amount was due towards them from the petitioner-Trust. Challenge to the auction held on 15.02.2018 was upheld vide order dated 03.04.2019 passed in CR No.6208 of 2018. Nonetheless, the auction purchaser failed to deposit the remaining auction amount as prescribed under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC within 15 days from the sale of property as the said amount was deposited on 05.04.2022, thus, no sale deed was ever executed in their favour.

4. During pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner-Trust moved two separate applications for seeking permission to deposit the remaining decretal amount due towards the land owners/private respondents besides praying for recalling the earlier orders dated 20.12.2017 and 15.02.2008, passed by the Executing Court, vide which auction of their property was held. The Executing Court dismissed both the said applications vide orders dated 03.03.2022 and 04.03.2022 respectively, which have now been impugned by way of present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the auction held on 15.02.2018 cannot be sustained and the land cannot be transferred in the name of the auction purchaser, who having been failed to deposit the complete auction amount within 15 days from the date of sale as prescribed under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC and thus, prays for an opportunity to deposit the compensation amount in favour of the land owners/private respondents towards satisfaction of the award while submitting that the auction proceedings be nullified.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the private respondents/land owners vehemently opposes the prayer made in the present revision petition. Learned counsel submits that though the auction took place on 15.02.2018 and the remaining auction amount was deposited by it on 05.04.2022, however, the delay in deposit was primarily on account of repeated applications being presented by the petitioner-Trust before the Executing Court and practically there was no delay on the part of the auction purchasers/private respondents.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as the records.

8. In the present case, the land was acquired in the year 2005 and the dispute relates to the payment/disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation wherein during pendency of the execution, some land owned by the petitioner–Trust was put to aucti