Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Janesh Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Rattan Kumar (deceased) through LRs – Respondent
Civil Revision No.86/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Nemo
Court affirms that revenue authorities are bound by civil court orders and cannot alter judgment decrees independently.
Headnote:The petition pertains to a challenge against an order dismissing objections in an execution petition related to a civil suit filed for permanent injunction and possession. The court affirmed that revenue authorities must comply with civil court judgments and decrees. Key issues included the validity of a boundary rectification ordered independently by revenue authorities during the pendency of litigation, which was determined not to interfere with the initial civil decree.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to execution petition's dismissal (Para 1) |
| 2. revenue authority's compliance with court order (Para 4) |
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in CMA No.310/2016, whereby the objections filed in the Execution Petition by the present petitioner/JD have been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned gorder and the pleadings appended along with the present petition.
3. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed on 04.10.1997. The same was registered as CS No.151/97, titled Rattan Kumari Vs. Janesh Kumar and Anr. The same had been filed seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction with possession. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2005. In terms of the decree, the decree holder/respondent was held entitled to possession of land measuring 100-35 Sq. Mtrs shown by Khasra No.1311/2 in the Local Commissioner’s report i.e.
Ex.DX comprised in Khata No.120, Khatauni No.234 min., situated at Mohal Shyam Nagar, Mauza mant, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP as per Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid for the year 1992-93. The judgme.nt and decree so passed was unsuccessfully assailed by the present petitioner/judgment debtor before the First Ap pellate Court and before this Court.
4. The sole contention urged on behalf of the present petitioner is that during the pendency of the suit in the case at hand i.e. Suit No.151 of 1997, which was instituted on 04.10.1997, on 20.02.2002, an application for rectification of the boundaries of Khasra No.1311, before the Settlement Officer was filed. As has already been stated supra, the suit in the case at hand was decreed by the trial Court on 18.04.2005. Insofar as the application filed for rectification of boundaries of Khasra No.1311 i.e. suit land is concerned, which was filed on i20.02.2002, the same was finally decided on 25.04.2016. The consequential rectification done by the revenue authority is what was sought to be brought to the notice of the Executing Court.
5. The effect of the correction by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 25.04.2016 has been appropriately considered in the impugned order by placing reliance on the judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court, wherein it has categorically been stated that revenue authorities are bound by the order, judgment and decree of the Civil Court and not vice versa.
6. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned tri.al Court and to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in CMA No.310/2016, is upheld. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
