' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 23-10-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Execution First Appeal No, 1 of 1993/BWP.
2. The land in dispute has been acquired for Seed Processing Plant established by the Punjab Seed Corporation, petitioner herein.
3. The dispute relates to the execution of a decree arising out of acquired land by the predecessor- in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5 for public purposes vide notification dated 27-5-1978.
4. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the Punjab Seed Corporation, being a body corporate, established under section 3 of the Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976, which could sue or be sued, was not joined as a party to the original reference, therefore, the decree could not be executed against them.
5. The learned Judge in Chambers repelled the objection raised by the petitioner in the following terms:- "The compensation having been enhanced by the Court, a decree has been drawn in terms of the judgment of the Court, therefore, it was not possible for the Executing Court to go behind the decree so as to look into the validity thereof and that too on the ground that the judgment-debtors have been misdescribed, for at the most it was a case of misdescription. Needless to add that the beneficiary is required under the law to deposit the compensation with the Land Acquisition Collector so that the same is disbursed to the person or persons whose land has been acquired. It is really astonishing that a semi-Government department is adamant to pay the compensation for the last so many years, although they have already utilised the land of the respondents. This attitude on the part of the appellant is condemnable for it is well-understood that the State is mother of the citizens but in the instant case it is pitched against its own citizens and for no just reasons. In the circumstances the order passed by the learned Executing Court does not call for interference."
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. The learned Judge in Chambers was right in holding that it was a case of misdescription simpliciter. We regret to point out that the petitioner has been resorting to delaying tactics not paying the compensation to the respondents although the land had been acquired as back as in 1978. The impugned order is unexceptionable warranting no interference.
7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.