JUDGMENT : I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. At the outset I say that I have gone through, the various orders of this Court passed from time to time, between 15th February, 2023 and 22nd November, 2023. 3. None appears for the respondents or for the State Legal Services Authority or the State. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondents in the learned court below, complaining of wrongful dispossession from the suit property and claiming back its possession from them, under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Claim for mesne profit was also made. 5. On 25th April, 2016, the suit was decreed directing the respondents to deliver peaceful possession of the suit property to the petitioner together with a decree for damages assessed at Rs. 10,000/- with the stipulation that the amount had to be paid and possession to be delivered within sixty days from that date failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to levy execution. 6. In execution, the petitioner was able to realize Rs.10,000/- from the respondents as recorded in the order of the executing court dated 24th November, 2022. 7. At the time of execution of the other part of the decree, the Nazir filed a report in the court that the property was government/revenue land and that in execution the property could not be handed over to the petitioner, as recorded in the order dated 23rd November, 2022. 8. Hence, this application challenging the said order dated 23rd November, 2022. 9. Section 6 of the Special Relief Act provides for a procedure by which the plaintiff wrongfully dispossessed from immovable property by the defendant can claim its possession within six months of such dispossession. 10. It arms the plaintiff with the right to recover possession thereof irrespective of the any other title that can be set up in relation to the said property. One who has been dispossessed from immovable property without due process of law, is allowed to recover possession thereof, irrespective of any other consideration. 11. Whatever may be the right title and interest of a party, he cannot by an illegal procedure take possession of an immovable property. Possession has to be returned back to one who was in possession thereof. 12. 11. Whatever may be the right title and interest of a party, he cannot by an illegal procedure take possession of an immovable property. Possession has to be returned back to one who was in possession thereof. 12. Here such kind of a decree has been passed. 13. The act of forcible dispossession of property claimed by the appellant is against the respondents and not against the government against which section 6 does not apply. 14. Therefore in my opinion the court below has committed a mistake by relying on the report of the Nazir. The court ought to have continued with the execution till possession was handed over to the petitioner who was found to be in possession before being illegally dispossessed by the respondents. 15. Therefore, this application is disposed by directing the learned court below to immediately execute the decree dated 24th April, 2016 in the manner aforesaid. Thereafter, on restoration of the status quo regarding the property, the government would be at liberty to exercise its right, if any, under the law. 16. I direct the court below to complete the execution proceedings by delivery of possession to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The first part of the order dated 23rd November, 2022 is set aside.