Also heard Mr P Upadhaya v. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

The facts of the case may, in brief, be recapitulated: The petitioners instituted TS No. 17/1987 praying for ejectment of the r espondent as well as one Anil Ch Biswas from the suit premises(described in the schedule to the plaint). The defendants contested the suit. On a consideration o f the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The decree, on being put to challenge in higher forums, was upheld, and it attained finality . Thereafter, Title Execution Case No. 5/1998 was instituted by the petitioners. In the meanwhile, some realignment of the suit land had taken place along with o ther land in the vicinity. Accordingly, on revenue records, the dag numbers and patta numbers were changed. Over the period of time, boundaries of the suit land were also changed and as a result, the bailiff of the Court could not identify the suit land, and decree could not be executed. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs/decree-holders filed an application under section 153 read with section 151 CPC for effecting necessary amendments in the schedule to the decree. The learned executing Court, by an order dated 18th Apri l, 2009, allowed the said application, as against which an application was filed before this Court by the judgment-debtor, namely, Swapan Kumar Sarkar, the oppo site party-herein, and the same was registered as CRP No. 228 of 2010. This Court, by an order dated 2nd December, 2010, disposed of the said applicati on with a direction to the learned executing Court to cause a local inspection o f the suit property to be made within a period of 15 days from the date of recei pt of the certified copy of the order, making it explicitly clear that the learn ed executing Court would strictly adhere to the time-frame fixed by the Court an d would not grant any adjournment on any count to any of the parties. This court also ordered that on receipt of the report of the local inspection, the learned executing Court would dispose of the execution proceedings as expeditiously as possible, and in any case not later than one month there-from. This court also o bserved that the local inspection, as ordered, should be conducted by the concer ned competent revenue authority in association with the bailiff of the Court. Mr T Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners/ decree-holders, submits that th e learned executing Court committed manifest irregularity in reopening the issue as to whether Dag No. 231/229 of NK Mahal No. 94/1 and NK Patta No. 20 are conv erted to Dag No. 1522 and if so, then what are the boundaries of Dag no. 1522, i nasmuch as, this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, had recorded a posit ive finding that the suit house with holding no. 127 stands on a plot of land un der Dag No. 1522 and not under Dag No. 231/229. With regard to the other directi ons of the learned executing Court, Mr Islam does not have any objection, althou gh a considerable time has elapsed. Mr P Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, su bmits that, in order to find out the real controversy between the parties, the l earned executing Court passed the impugned order and in passing the same, it act ed within its jurisdiction. He further submits that the contention of the learne d counsel for the petitioners that a finding was recorded by this Court in CRP N o. 228/2010 that Dag number 231/229 is now Dag number 1522 is not correct and in this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no int erference is called for with regard to the impugned order dated 20th May, 2011. The operative part of the impugned order is quoted below: (cid:28)Thus, it is necessary to issue a fresh commission in the light of the o rder of the Hon’ble High Court. This court cannot rely upon the present circle o fficer and no proper report is expected from him. Accordingly, I direct that Dep uty Commissioner, Darrang to appoint a competent revenue official to make a loca l investigation of the suit property in association with the bailiff of the civi l court. The commissioner shall ascertain whether dag no. 231/229 of NK Mahal-94/1 and NK Patta no-20 is converted to dag no-1522. If so, what are the boundaries of dag no-1522? If dag no-231/229 is not converted to dag no-1522 to which dag it is co nverted, and shall stated the present tatus of dag no-231/229. The commissioner shall peruse all the relevant revenue records while making the investigation and preparing report and may take assistance of revenue staff. The Commissioner while making the investigation shall serve notices to t he parties and shall notify the bailiff/Nazir of the civil court. The commission er is directed to submit the report within one month from the date of receipt of writ. The DC, Darrang is directed to monitor the matter and shall treat the mat ter as serious and most urgent. Issue writ. Let the copy of the order, the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the stat ement of the circle officer on oath, all copies of the exhibits which were exhib ited during the examination of the circle officer be annexed with the writ. Fix 30.06-11 for Commissioner’s report (cid:29). In the context of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2010. This court noted that identity of holding number 127, the suit house, had never been in dispute between the parties. This court also recorded a finding that wit h the change of the Dag and Patta numbers, the suit house then stood on a plot o f land under Dag No. 1522 and not under Dag No. 231/229. This court also noted t hat boundaries of the suit land on which the house is located, though undergone some changes on the north, south and west, these are prima facie relatable to th e original descriptions. This court also noted that, as the pleadings of the par ties would reveal, the suit house being holding no. 127 is presently located in Dag No. 1522 and not in Dag No. 231/229, as originally described in the plaint. Relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow: (cid:28)As the pleadings of the parties would reveal, the suit house being Hold ing No. 127 is presently located in Dag No. 1522 and not in Dag No. 231/229 as o riginally described in the plaint. The petitioner/judgment debtor, however, has claimed possession of the said house. Admittedly as well, the following changes heave occurred to the boundaries of the suit land:- North :- Kamala Saha in place of Hari Pada. South :- Gopal Devnath, Nepal Devnath and Biplab Devnath in place of Nri pendra Devnath. West :- Krishna Agarwralla in place of Kamla Sarma and Krishna Agarwal la (cid:29). - - - - - - - - - - (cid:28) & & &Noticeably, the identity of Holding No. 127, the suit house, had never b een in dispute between the parties. As referred to hereinabove, with the change in the Dag and Patta Nos. this house now stands on a plot of land under Dag no. 1522 instead of Dag No. 231/229. The boundaries of the suit land on which the ho use is located, though have undergone some changes on the north, south and west, these are prima facie related to the original descriptions & &.. (cid:29). In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court, this Court is unable to accept the contention of Mr Upadhaya that the learned executing Court can embar k upon a fresh enquiry to decide as to whether Dag No. 231/229 is converted to D ag No. 1522 and if so, then what are the boundaries of Dag No. 1522 ? Similarly, the further direction that in the event Dag No. 231/229 was not found to have b een converted to Dag No. 1922, to find out as to which Dag it is converted and a lso to state present status of Dag No. 231/229, is not permissible, as the said finding has attained finality. The learned executing Court cannot reopen the iss ue once again, and it is obliged to carry out the directions of this Court in CR P No.228/2010. In view of the above, following portion of the order dated 20th May, 201 1 passed in Title Execution Case No. 5/1998 by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Mangal dai, is set aside: (cid:28)The commissioner shall ascertain whether dag no. 231/229 of NK Mahal-94/1 and N K Patta no-20 is converted to dag no-1522. If so, what are the boundaries of dag no-1522? If dag no-231/229 is not converted to dag no-1522 to which dag it is c onverted, and shall state the present status of dag no-231/229. The commissioner shall peruse all the relevant revenue records while making the investigation an d preparing report and may take assistance of revenue staff. (cid:29) The Deputy Commissioner, Darrang will act in terms of the order dated 20 th May, 2011, except the portion quoted above. Learned counsel for the parties submit they will appear before the learn ed executing Court on 23.8.2012. The learned executing Court is directed to follow the directions of this Court passed in CRP No. 228/2010 and is now directed to dispose of the executio n proceeding within a period of one month from 23.8.2012. The revision petition is disposed of. No costs.