Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 192 (MP)

Rajesh Kasera v. Sirvi Kshtriya Samaj Trust

2024-02-21

VIVEK RUSIA

body2024
ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging the order dated 19.1.2023 whereby the learned Executing Court has refused to grant interim protection to them and directed to handover the vacant possession of their houses to the decree-holder. 2. The decree-holder - Aditya Chitnis filed civil suit No.12A/2010 before the Civil Judge, Class-II against Sirvi Kshatriya Samaj Trust claiming himself to be an owner of the land bearing Survey No. 2447 area 0.376 Hect. situated at Patwari Halka No.24, Ujjain. According to the plaintiff, Sirvi Kshatriya Samaj Trust fraudulently obtained the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.3.2003 and the same is liable to be declared as void. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the suit land is an open land protected by fencing and trees and his ancestral house is there on the land. The suit was contested by the Sirvi Kshatriya Samaj Trust as well as by the Government and finally a judgment and decree dated 17.1.2014 was passed in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The aforesaid decree was assailed by the Sirvi Kshatriya Samaj Trust by way of First Appeal, Second Appeal and SLP before the apex Court and remained unsuccessful. Now, the plaintiff has put the decree in execution for taking possession of the land. The learned Executing Court issued possession warrant in order to take possession of the suit land. Meanwhile, the present petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC objecting the decree on the ground that they are in possession of the houses which they purchased vide registered sale-deeds. Therefore, unless their objections are decided, the decree-holder be restrained from taking possession of their house. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The Executing Court issued the possession warrant of the land. The process server/Nazir went to the spot on 19.1.2023 and submitted the report that there are as many as 150 houses constructed on the land and they were advised to vacate the houses. Certain owners who were tenant have left the house and certain owners put the locks and disappeared. Locks were put on few houses and keys were handed over to the Court. Now, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petitions claiming that they are the title-holder and under the garb of execution proceedings, they are being wrongly dispossessed. 5. Locks were put on few houses and keys were handed over to the Court. Now, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petitions claiming that they are the title-holder and under the garb of execution proceedings, they are being wrongly dispossessed. 5. In M.P. No.712/2023, the petitioner has raised the objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. and also filed the separate civil suit claiming that they purchased the part of the suit land from the ancestor of Aditya Chitnis, therefore, they are the absolute owners of the houses in question, hence decree under execution is not binding on them. 6. In view of the report submitted by the process server/Nazir it is apparent that the suit land is not a vacant land, there are as many as 150 houses are constructed on the land, but the said report is incomplete and it is nowhere reflects that how much area of the land is vacant and on how much land the houses are constructed. The Executing Court is directed to obtain the spotinspection report from the Revenue Officers to ascertain as to how much area of the suit land is vacant. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that for vacant land the petitioners have no claim and they have no objection is the same is handed over to the plaintiff, but so far as houses are concerned, the issue is liable to be decided whether the houses are constructed on the land of the plaintiff and the objectors have valid title over their houses. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to be dispossession from their houses in which they are living since last more than a decade till their applications filed under Order 21 Rule 97 to 100 of the CPC are decided. After receipt of the report from the Revenue Officers, the learned Executing Court shall pass a fresh order for handing over the vacant part of the suit land to the plaintiff/decree-holder. For the other part of the land for which objections are pending, same be decided as per law 7. With the aforesaid limited relief, these petitions are disposed of. Let a photocopy of this order be retained in the file of each connected petition.