Jagtar Singh v. Surinder Singh And ORS

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1044 of 2022 Date of Decision: 20.12.2022 Jagtar Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Surinder Singh and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

The Executing Court has only directed the revenue official to demarcate the property in dispute, afresh while keeping in view the following points:- "a.

Whether the respondent i.e. Surinder Singh is in occupation of only khasra no. 13R/31/1 as contended by him, or is in occupation of any part of khasra no. 13R/31/2 in the revenue estate of village, Batala Garbi, Tehsil-Batala.

b.

Whether portion marked as ADEFGH on the site plan filed by the applicant forms part of khasra no. 13R/31/2 and if yes, who is in the occupation of the same?" 2.

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court while directing the revenue official to demarcate the area. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.12.22 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that

Civil Revision No. 1044 of 2022 that Executing Court is going behind the decree. From a bare reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the Executing Court has only directed the revenue official to demarcate the area in order to proceed with the matter. 4.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge December 20, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.12.22 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document