ORDER

Date : 26-10-2021 Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present petitioner is the judgment debtor in Title Execution Case No. 3/2012, wherein the present respondent/decree holder was entitled for recovery of possession of the decreetal land measuring 2 katha 7 ½ lechas covered by old Dag No. 2 of K.P. Patta No. 2(old). The said decree was duly executed on 23/07/2017. The Lat Mandal had submitted a report dated 23/10/2017 to the Executing Court as regards demarcation of the decreetal land. For the purpose of convenience, the translated portion of the report dated 23-10-2017 is quoted herein below :

“In connection with T.Ex. Case No. 3/2012 land measuring 6.18 Are covered by old Dag No. 2, new Dag No. 8 of old K.P. Patta No. 8, New K.P. Patta No. 789 and land measuring 0.17 Are covered by old Dag No. 2, New Dag No. 9 of old K.P. Patta No. 8, New Patta No. 207 in total 6.35 Are ( 2 kathas 7 ½ lechas) have been measured and shown to the civil najir of the Hon’ble Court.”

3. From the above quoted report, it transpires that land measuring 6.18 Are covered by old Dag No. 2/(New) Dag No. 8 of old K.P. Patta No. 8 and new K.P. Patta No. 789 and another portion of land measuring 0.17 Are covered by old Dag No. 2/new Dag No. 9 of old K.P. Patta No. 8 (New Patta No. 207) was measured and shown to the civil nazir for execution.

4. I have also perused the evidence of the Lat Mandal, wherein he on the basis of records marked as Ext.–C states that the old Dag No. 2/new Dag No. 8 of new K. P. Patta No. 8 the area of the land is 6.18 Are which is in the name of ten pattadars and he further stated on oath that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, Lt. Jawaharlal Dev Nath was the pattadar in respect to a plot of land measuring 6.78 Are covered by old Dag No. 2/new Dag No. 9 and included in K.P.Patta No. 8 old and 207 new.

5. The Executing Court vide the impugned order dated 20/05/2019 dismissed the petition filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioners herein on the ground that the area of land measuring 2 kathas 7 ½ lechas, which was executed and delivered to the respondent herein was properly done and the decree was duly satisfied.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. I have also perused the records as well as the impugned order dated 20/05/2019.

7. From the said records, it appears that the Executing Court failed to consider the report of the Lat Mandal dated 23/10/2017 as well as the evidence of the Lat Mandal in the proper perspective. On perusal of the report, it seems that 0.17 Are of land covered by new Dag No. 9 of new K.P. Patta No. 207 was included in the executed property in order to form 2 kathas 7 ½ lechas of land. The said aspect of the matter being brought to the notice of the Executing Court by way of an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was the duty of the Executing Court to go into the said aspect of the matter as to whether the land measuring 0.17 Are was a part of the decreetal land or for that matter, to look into the question as to whether the decreetal land and the executed land is the same. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion, that in view of the fact that the Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in charge and responsible to look into the aspect of execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree, I would remand the matter to the Executing Court to decide the application under Section 47 CPC afresh by taking into consideration as to whether the area of land measuring 0.17 Are is a part of the decreetal land. In this regard the Executing Court may take the help of the Revenue Authorities by issuing appropriate Commission. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months, i.e., from the date of this order being brought to the notice of the Executing Court.

8. The parties shall appe