Punjab Waqf Board Vs Sarwan Ram — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Punjab Waqf Board Vs Sarwan Ram — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed; orders dated 05.07.2014 (P-2) and 01.10.2016 (P-4) set aside; matter remanded to the learned Executing Court for fresh determination in light of the trial Court's specific findings; petitioner/plaintiff directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 26.09.2025; Executing Court requested to expedite and conclude the proceedings at the earliest; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court could lawfully dispose of the execution/decree as satisfied on the basis of a demarcation report furnished by the Bailiff with the assistance of the concerned Patwari, when the learned trial Court had recorded a positive finding (para No.11 of its judgment) of the defendant's illegal possession over the suit property. +1 more

Court's answer

No observation at all was made by the Courts below as to how much is the total area of Khasra No.98, nor whether besides the Dargah there is any other portion of this khasra number in the occupation of any other individual.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Executing Court could not have gone beyond the positive finding recorded by the learned trial Court in para No.11 of its judgment - based on the admission made by defendant Swaran Ram admitting his illegal possession over the suit property - in the absence of those findings having been upset in any statutory appeal.

Key takeaways

The revision petition is allowed; orders dated 05.07.2014 (P-2) and 01.10.2016 (P-4) passed by the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Executing Court for fresh determination taking into consideration the specific findings recorded by the learned Trial Court (referred to in the remand direction as its judgment dated 05.07.2014).ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab Waqf Board (decree-holder/petitioner) challenged the orders dated 05.07.2014 (P-2) of the learned Executing Court and 01.10.2016 (P-4) of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the execution of a decree dated 21.12.2005 (Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar; Civil Suit No.24 of 29.01.2003, 'Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. Vs. Swaran Ram') for possession of a 755 sq. yard site, Khasra No. 98 min, Village Dihana, was disposed of as satisfied on the strength of a Bailiff's demarcation report (with Patwari assistance) showing the respondent/judgment-debtor not in possession of any part of Khasra No.98. Held: (i) once the trial Court had recorded a positive finding (para No.11 of its judgment) founded on defendant Swaran Ram's admission of illegal possession over the suit property, the Executing Court could not go beyond those findings, absent their being upset in a statutory appeal, merely on a demarcation report; (ii) the Courts below made no observation on the total area of Khasra No.98 or whether any portion besides the Dargah was in the occupation of any other individual. Revision allowed; both orders set aside; execution remanded for fresh determination; petitioner to appear before the Executing Court on 26.09.2025; expedition of proceedings requested. (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral; decided 11.09.2025.)

CR-1773-2017 (O&M) [1]

126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-1773-2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.09.2025

Punjab Wa q f Board

........ Petitioner

Versus

Sarwan Ra m

......... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:Mr.G.N. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revision p e tition challenge has been laid to the orde r s dated 05.07.2014 (P-2) and 01.10.2016 (P-4) passed b y the learne d Executing Court and the Court of learned Addition a l District Jud g e, Hoshiarpur, respectively, w hereby the execution filed b y the petition e r-decree holder has been di s posed of being satisfied. 2. Despite notice, no one has c hosen to appear on behalf o f the respon d ent and as such he was pr o ceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.05.2018. 3. I have heard learned couns e l for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book. 4. In the present case, the di s pute arose in the executing proceeding s arising out of judgment a nd decree dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshank a r, District Hoshiaprur, in Civil Suit No.24 of 29.01.200 3 ,

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-1773-2017 (O&M) [2]

titled as Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. Vs. Swaran Ram . The

operative p a rt of the decree is extracted hereunder:-

“It is ordered the s uit of plaintiff is decreed with costs for recovery of po s session of the site shown red in colour in the site plan , comprised of an area of 755 sq. yards in Khewat an d Khatauni No. 162/210, 211 Khasra No. 98 min bo u nded as follows East-Street. West-Wakf property, N o rth-Gurdwara Sahib, SouthStreet, as owner, situate d in Village Dihana as entered in fard jamabandi 1994-95 by removal of superstructure i.e. temp o rary chann/ chapper etc.”

Based upon the aforementioned judgment and decree, the petitioner/ p laintiff sought its execution. T he Court below while replying upon the d e marcation report submitted by the Bailiff carried out wi t h the assist a nce of concerned Patwari went on to record that the respondent was not in possession of a n y area forming part of Khas r a No.98 and thus no further orders were required to be passed as the decree sto o d satisfied.

The aforesaid observations i n the facts and circumstanc e s of the pres e nt case are against records. Once a positive finding w a s recorded b y the learned trial Court in pa r a No.11 of its judgment bas e d on the admission made by defendant S w aran Ram admitting his illeg a l possession over the suit property, the l e arned Executing Court could not have g o ne beyond such findings in the absence of those having been upset in any statutory appeal and that too, merely on the basis o f some dem a rcation report furnished by t h e Bailiff with the assistance o f concerned P atwari in the execution proc e edings.

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-1773-2017 (O&M) [3]

Even no observation at all h as been made by the Cour t s below to the effect that how much is the total area of Khasra No.9 8 ; whether b e sides Dargah, there is any other portion of this Khas r a Number in t he occupation of any other i n dividual.

In such facts, the revision pe t ition is allowed. Orders dat e d 05.07.2014 (P-2) as well as order date d 01.10.2016 (P-4) passed b y the Courts b elow are set aside and the m atter is remanded back to the learned Ex e cuting Court for its fresh determination while taking in t o considerati o n the specific findings recor d ed by the learned Trial Court in its judgment dated 05.07.2014. The p etitioner/ plaintiff is directed t o appear bef o re the learned Executing Co u rt on 26.09.2025. 9. Considering the fact that t h e judgment and decree w a s passed in t h e year 2003, the Executing C ourt is requested to expedi t e the procee d ings and conclude the same at the earliest. 10. Pending misc. application( s ), if any, shall also stand disposed o f .

11.09.2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) sanjay JUDGE

Whether speaking/reaso ned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document