the Appellate Court on 09.08.1999. No further appeal was filed and thus, the judgment dated 12.08.1994 a(cid:31)ained finality.

3.1 Pe$$oner being the decree holder then filed execu$on No.2/ 14T/11.02.2000 in 2000. It is contended that ever since then, he is unable to take possession of the suit property pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1994 passed in his favour despite issuance of warrants of possession several $mes. Earlier the warrants could not be executed for want of police help. Later on, it was reported by the Revenue Officials that Jhuggis and cemented houses had been constructed; and electric meters & hand pumps had been installed in the suit property and as such, they showed their inability to remove the said construc$ons and sought appropriate direc$ons for the removal. Correspondence was done with the District Magistrate to provide necessary police help. It is the allega$on of the pe$$oner that because of the non-serious conduct of the administra$ve authori$es, the warrants of possession could not be executed despite interven$on of the Hon’ble Administra$ve Judge of this Court.

3.2 Pe$$oner also contends that an applica$on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by some of the alleged representa$ves of the encroachers/ respondents/ defendants/ judgment debtors for se;ng the decree dated 12.08.1994. Another applica$on was filed under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC for staying the execu$on. Both these applica$ons were dismissed way back on 21.08.2012 and 13.01.2014 respec$vely. Therea>er, various $mes warrants of possession were issued, but the same remained unexecuted and the Execu$ng Court kept on commen$ng upon the conduct of the administra$on and the police authority and their inability to execute the warrants. The pe$$oner has specifically referred about an order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Execu$ng Court, which reads as under:-

“ The ma(cid:31)er involved the act of par$cipa$on of the revenue authori$es, police authori$es, PWD authori$es etc. Despite the interven$on of Hon’ble Administra$ve Judge, the Court has not been able to sa$sfy 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 authori$es, police authori$es and PWD authori$es have to ac$vely assist the court each other in delivering vacant possession of the suit land to the decree holder. Ul$mately when the ma(cid:31)er reached to the administra$ve Judge, interven$on of the learned District & Sessions Judge was sought and police help was awarded to the DH. Local police remained present at the spot but they were not able to execute the warrants as the judgment debtors raised a protest. The judgment debtors threatened to take the law into their own hand commi;ng riots etc. As a result of which warrants of possession could not be executed. Ul$mately two of the judgment debtors i.e. Panna Ram son of Bali, and Guddo wife of Jagga came to the spot.”

3.3 The pe$$oner has further given details that some of defendants/JDs/their alleged respec$ve representa$ves filed CWP No.12710 of 2014 $tled as “Niranjan and others v. The State of Punjab”, seeking direc$on from this High Court against State of Punjab for their rehabilita$on and also sought stay against their dispossession. The true facts were concealed in that pe$$on and an interim order was obtained and so, the execu$on was put to break. Pe$$oner was constrained to file CM Nos.12500 to 12502 of 2014 for impleading him as a party. This Court categorically held that any stay order granted by this Court would not operate against the interest of the present pe$$oner.

3.4 It is alleged by the pe$$oner that the District Authori$es had been hand in glove with the encroachers/JDs and ul$mately, the writ pe$$on was dismissed with liberty to the said persons to make a representa$on to the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, as state counsel submi(cid:31)ed that representa$on,