SHAKEEL AHMED, J.----By this common judgment I propose to dispose of instant appeal and connected Appeals Nos. 24, 30 and 31-A/2019 as common question of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the appeal are that land measuring 1097 kanals in Mauza Kakul Tehsil and District Abbottabad of the decree holders/respondents was acquired for public purpose after fulfilling all legal and codal formalities. The land owners / respondents not contented with the amount of compensation filed objection petitions for enhancement of compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector referred the objection petitions to the Referee Court. The learned Referee Court, after following the prescribed procedu re, enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6 % simple interest vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2010. Not satisfied with the same, the judgment debtors filed appeals before this court, which were dismissed vide judgment dated 22.10.2014. The judgment of this court was assailed before apex Court, which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.02.2018 being barred by time. The civil review petition filed against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed on 04.06.2018. The decree holders / respondents filed execution petition on 10.09.2015 to which objection petitions were filed on the ground that the same were barred by time. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 06.05.2019 dismissed the objection petitions, hence, these appeals.
3. It was mainly argued by the leaned counsel for the appellants that matter was decided by the learned Referee Court on 20.12.2010 and the decree holders / respondents failed to file execution petition within three years, therefore, the execution petitions were barred by time and are liable to be dismissed.
4. As against that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holders / respondents contended that matter was finally decided by this court on 22.10.2014 and after dismissal of appeals, they filed execution petitions on 10.09.2015, hence, the execution petitions are well within time.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It is evident from the record that matter was finally decided by this court vide judgment dated 22.10.2014 on merits after providing the parties an opportunity of hearing whereafter , execution petitions were filed on 10.09.2015.
Admittedly , all these execution petitions were filed by the decree holders within three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. It is by now settled that the judgment / decree / order , which has been accepted or modified or reversed or affirmed by the higher forum on merits both on points of facts and the law involved therein, attains the status of final decree and it is to be executed and that doctrine of merger fully applies to the reversal and modification and also to all those cases in which the judgment of a lower forum has been affirmed in appeal or revision by a higher forum. In this context reference may be made to the cases reported as Kinhayammoed and others v. State of Kerala and another (AIR 2000 page 2887, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v Messrs Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (AIR 1958 SC 868) and Abdul Qayyum v . Ali Asghar Shah (1992 SCMR 241 ).
7. In view of the above, I hold that execution petitions filed by the decree holders/r espondents are well within time as these were filed within a period of three years from the date of final judgment passed by this court, consequently , this and connected appeals being bereft of merits, are hereby dismissed in limine.