In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Reserved on: 27.2.2025 Date of Decision: 11.3.2025 Gram Panchayat Garhi Padla ......Petitioner Versus Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. H.S.Kasan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 17.11.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 1, wherebys the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order dated 15.11.1996, passed by the Assistant Collector concerned, was allowed and the order supra became set aside.

Brief facts of the case

2. It is averred in the instant petition, that since respondent No. 2 was in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to the I attest to the accuracy Gandram Panchayat concerned, therefore, the Gram Panchayat concerned, filed a petition under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961), thus seeking the eviction of respondent No.2 from the petition land. After due service of notice upon respondent No. 2, and, after hearing his objections, respondent No. 2 was ordered to be evicted from the petition land on 9.4.1985. It is further averred in the instant petition, that owing to some unavoidable circumstances and collusion of respondent No. 2 with the Gram Panchayat concerned, the apposite execution petition was filed in the year 1995. Moreover since, the possession of the petition land rather had already been taken by the Gram Panchayat concerned, therebys the Executing Court, did not proceed to issue warrants of possession vis-a-vis the disputed lands, rather through an order becoming rendered on 15.11.1996, it ordered that the file be consigned to the record room.

3. Being aggrieved from the order (supra), respondent No. 2 preferred a revision petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1961. Vide the impugned order dated 17.11.1998 (Annexure P-2), the said revision petition was allowed and the order dated 15.11.1996, passed by the Assistant Collector concerned, thus was set aside. The operative part of the said order becomes extracted hereinafter.

“I have gone through Section of Village Common Land Act from which it is clear that for execution purposes it is same as in Punjab Tenancy Act PLJ 1997(2) (F.C.Pb) page 60, speaks about application of Article 137 of Limitation Act for execution in Punjab Tenancy Act. According to which limitation is 3 years for execution. In this case Article 64 does not applies and in such situation execution petition of the applicant is allowed and order passed by lower court is set aside. Order pronounced.”

4. Moreover, the provisions, as carried in Article 136 of the Limitation Act also become extracted hereinafter.

136. For the execution Twelve years. When the decree or order of any decree becomes enforceable or (other than a where the decree or any decree granting a subsequent order directs mandatory any payment of money or injunction) or the delivery of any order of any civil property to be made at a court. certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place:

Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.

5. Ex facie, the supra extracted provision makes a prescription thereins, that the ordained period of limitation rather for enforcing or executing a order/decree of possession, thus is 12 years. The said ordained period of 12 years is to be computed