JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby application dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner/decree holder informing the Executing Court about the factum of the non-delivery of the actual possession of the property in dispute to him, was dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.709 of 1990, which was filed by him against as many as 43 defendants seeking possession of the suit property comprised in Khewat No.161, Khatouni No.518, Rect. No.26, Khasra No. 10 (3-18), situated in village Brahman Majra, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib on the ground that he was the title holder of the said property and that defendants did not have any concern with the same, but had encroached upon the same. Vide judgment dated 12.08.1994 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sub Judge I- Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, the said suit was decreed. One of the defendants Babu Ram challenged the said judgment and decree by filing Civil Appeal No.137-T of 1994, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 09.08.1999. No further appeal was filed and thus, the judgment dated 12.08.1994 attained finality.

3.1 Petitioner being the decree holder then filed execution No.2/ 14T/11.02.2000 in 2000. It is contended that ever since then, he is unable to take possession of the suit property pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1994 passed in his favour despite issuance of warrants of possession several times. Earlier the warrants could not be executed for want of police help. Later on, it was reported by the Revenue Officials that Jhuggis and cemented houses had been constructed; and electric meters & hand pumps had been installed in the suit property and as such, they showed their inability to remove the said constructions and sought appropriate directions for the removal. Correspondence was done with the District Magistrate to provide necessary police help. It is the allegation of the petitioner that because of the non-serious conduct of the administrative authorities, the warrants of possession could not be executed despite intervention of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Court.

3.2 Petitioner also contends that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by some of the alleged representatives of the encroachers/ respondents/ defendants/ judgment debtors for setting the decree dated 12.08.1994. Another application was filed under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC for staying the execution. Both these applications were dismissed way back on 21.08.2012 and 13.01.2014 respectively. Thereafter, various times warrants of possession were issued, but the same remained unexecuted and the Executing Court kept on commenting upon the conduct of the administration and the police authority and their inability to execute the warrants. The petitioner has specifically referred about an order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Executing Court, which reads as under:-

" The matter involved the act of participation of the revenue authorities, police authorities, PWD authorities etc. Despite the intervention of Hon'ble Administrative Judge, the Court has not been able to satisfy the decree in favour of the decree holder for the reasons. It is not the court who can actually go to the spot and deliver the vacant possession of the suit land to the decree holder. The revenue authorities, police authorities and PWD authorities have to actively assist the court each other in delivering vacant possession of the suit land to the decree holder. Ultimately when the matter reached to the administrative Judge, intervention of the learned District & Sessions Judge was sought and police help was awarded to the DH. Local police remained present at the spot but they were not able to execute the warrants as the judgment debtors raised