Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11962 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nikhil Chaturvedi,Pramod Kumar Jain
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jain, Senior counsel assisted by Sri N.K. Chaturvedi who appears for respondent no.6.
The petitioners has filed this petition seeking a direction upon the administrative authorities respondents no. 1 to 5 not to dispossess them from the land in question khasra plot no. 20 M having an area of 7.4590 hectare situate in village Dholpura Tehsil and District Firozabad without following due process established under law.
Accordingly to the petitioners the land of aforesaid khasra plot no. 20 M was the joint land of the petitioners and late Ajant Singh, Rajveer and Raja Baboo. The aforesaid Rajveer and Raja Baboo have agreed to sell the same in favour of respondent no. 6 by registered agreement. Respondent no. 6 instituted a suit for the decree of specific performance of the said agreement and the same was decreed on 18.3.2006. Respondent no. 6 put the said decree in execution and in the execution on 2.5.2014 an order was passed directing the possession memo be issued to the Amin for delivering the possession to respondent no. 6.
After the sale deed was executed on 22.5.2010, the possession was delivered on 23.5.2014 as per the report dated 24.5.2014 of the executing court. In the execution proceedings respondent no. 6 has also moved an application to close the execution proceedings in full and final settlement of the decree. It is also alleged that the petitioners have filed Original Suit No. 74 of 2015 challenging the above decree of specific performance which is pending. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners have filed this petition for the above direction.
The submission of Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the administrative authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter and to dispossess them from the land in dispute.
No doubt the administrative authorities have no role in the matter of execution of a decree of the court below and that they can not intervene when the matter is sub-judice before the civil court, nonetheless, from the record we find that respondent no. 6 has already been put in possession of the land in dispute in the execution of a decree of specific performance as per the boundaries disclosed in the agreement and decree as well as in the sale deed.
In view of the above, respondent no. 6 or any one claiming the same is not liable to be dispossessed from the said land.
In view of the above, the administrative authorities can not intervene in the matter and dispossess any of the parties from the land in question. Any administrative order which runs contrary to the orders of the civil court ie. the executing court are meaningless and are liable to be ignored. The possession of respondent no. 6 as per the possession memo and the report dated 24.5.2014 on record of the executing court of the land as per the boundary disclosed in the sale deed shall not be disturbed and it will be open for the petitioners to take recourse to the civil remedies either by way of pursuing the suit which they have already filed or file objection under Order XXI Rule 97 and 98 CPC if they have wrongly been dispossessed from the land in dispute.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 SKS