Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Muncipal Council, Jaisalmer vs Harish Kumar on 12 September, 2022
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7140/2022
1. Municipal Council, Jaisalmer, Through Its Chairman
2. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaisalmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Harish Kumar S/o SriVallabh Goydani, R/o Jaisalmer At
Present Krishna Kunj, Mohanpura, Jodhpur
2. Smt. Premlata W/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently
Residing At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St Street, 10Th Main
Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
3. Smt. Rama Kothari D/o Late Deendayal Goydani,
Currently Residing At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St Street,
10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
4. Manish S/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently Residing
At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St Street, 10Th Main Road, Anna
Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
5. Smt. Taruna Rathi D/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently
Residing At A-501, Monalisa Park, Citi Light, Surat,
Gujarat
6. Smt. Kavita Rathi D/o Late Deendayal Goydani, Currently
Residing At A-72, Casela Towers, Opp. Iscon Temple, S.g.
Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
7. Smt. Padma Bisani D/o Late Deendayal Goydani,
Currently Residing At C-301, Nightengle Society,
Hindustan Naka, Kandivali (West) Mumbai, Maharashtra
8. Anil Kumar S/o Late Deendayal Goyani, Resident Of
Chennai, Currently Residing At G-45, Plot No. 1181, 1St
Street, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil
Nadu
9. Gopikishan Mehra, Then Chairman Municipal Council,
Jaisalmer
10. Rajkumar Singhal, Assistant Engineer And Commissioner,
Municipality, Jaisalmer
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM)
(2 of 21) [CW-7140/2022]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Priyansh Arora, Mr. V.D. Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 12/09/2022 This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Jaisalmer (for short 'the Executing Court'), whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondent- decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC has been allowed and it is directed that the possession of the disputed property be restored to the decree holders (respondent Nos.1 to 8) with a further direction that the petitioner - Municipality shall pay compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh to the respondent-decree holders. Certain consequential directions have also been issued.
Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Vallabh has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners in the court of Civil Judge, Jaislamer in the year 1993 claiming that his father Shri Laxmi Chand had purchased a plot measuring 80 x 80 feet situated in (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (3 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] Jaisalmer, description of which is given in the plaint, from the District Magistrate Jaisalmer on 6.12.1951 and, thereafter, Patta was issued with respect to the said plot and since then, earlier his father and thereafter the plaintiff - Shri Vallabh is in possession of the said plot where he is operating a petrol pump. It is alleged that the petitioner - Municipality is trying to dispossess the plaintiff illegally from the said plot and, therefore, a decree for permanent injunction may be issued in his favour restraining the petitioner - Municipality from dispossessing him from the said plot.
The suit filed by Shri Vallabh came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge vide order dated 28.5.2001. Being aggrieved with the same, Shri Vallabh has preferred an appeal in the court of Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer and the Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.2001 has allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit filed by Shri Vallabh and restrained the petitioner - Municipality by way of permanent injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff - Shri Vallabh from the plot in question without following the due procedure. It is not in dispute that the second appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 22.9.2001 passed by the Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer was (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (4 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] summarily rejected by the High Court vide judgment dated 16.5.2005.
Thereafter, the respondent-decree holders have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC before the Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer in the year 2008 alleging that they have been illegally dispossessed by the petitioner - Municipality from the disputed property. The Distt. Judge, Jaisalmer vide order dated 23.9.2009 has committed the matter to the Civil Judge while holding that the same is not maintainable before it. The Civil Judge vide order dated 5.5.2010 has rejected the said application while holding that the same is maintainable only when the suit is pending but since the suit has been finally decided, the application is liable to be dismissed.
In the meantime, the respondent-decree holders have preferred an execution application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC on 5.9.2008 before the Executing Court. During pendency of the said application, another application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC was preferred on behalf of the respondent-decree holders on 5.10.2010 with a prayer to restore the possession of the disputed property and to attach the property of the department with a further direction to pay them compensation. (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM)
(5 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] The Civil Judge vide order dated 30.9.2013 has dismissed the application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC filed by the respondent-decree holders as being not maintainable, however, simultaneously it has ordered that the application filed on behalf of the respondent- decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC be registered separately for the purpose of inquiry. Ultimately, vide order dated 13.4.2022, the Executing Court has allowed the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC filed on behalf of the respondent-decree holders, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Executing Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Executing Court has grossly erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent-decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC because the said application is not accompanied by an application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. It is submitted that admittedly, the application filed by the respondent-decree holders under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge on 30.9.2013 and with the dismissal of the said application, another application filed by the respondent-decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC ought to have been dismissed. It is argued that (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (6 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] the Executing Court has, therefore, committed a grave error in passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that before dispossessing the respondent-decree holders from the property in question, the petitioner - Municipality has followed the due procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') by serving the notice upon the respondent-decree holders as per the procedure laid down under Section 250 of the Act of 1959. It is also argued that the finding of the Executing Court that the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act of 1959 has not been followed and the notice upon the respondent-decree holder has not been served as per the procedure laid down under Section 250 of the Act of 1959 is contrary to record and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that as a matter of fact, the respondent-decree holders have no title in their favour in relation to the property in question and they are mere encroachers and, in such circumstances, the Executing Court has grossly erred in issuing directions to restore the possession to (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (7 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] them. It is further argued that the Executing Court has also grossly erred in directing the petitioner - Municipality to pay compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh without even making the assessment of real loss caused to the respondent-decree holders. It is, thus, prayed that the direction of paying compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh to the respondent-decree holders is liable to be set aside.
In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Asikali Akbarali Gilani and Others Vs. Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan and Others, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 799; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others Vs. Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Limited, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 781 and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kanti Chand Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in RLW 2004 (3) Raj. 1963.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the Executing Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM)
(8 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] It is argued that the respondent-decree holders can maintain the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC independently without even filing the application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. It is further submitted that in case of injunction, application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC is only maintainable. It is also submitted that in the present case, the respondent-decree holders have earlier moved an application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC and during the pendency of the said application, another application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC was filed, however, the Civil Judge while dismissing the application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC on 30.9.2013 has ordered for registering the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC separately for the purpose of inquiry. It is argued that the order passed by the Civil Judge on 30.9.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioner - Municipality and the same has attained finality and, in such circumstances, the petitioner - Municipality is estopped from raising objection by virtue of principles of res judicata. It is argued that it is well settled that the principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings and once it becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding. (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM)
(9 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and Another, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 and Chhabil Das Vs. Pappu, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 41.
It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the technicalities of law should be construed to advance justice and not to defeat justice. It is submitted that the Civil Procedure Code is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishment and penalties. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the learned District Judge while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff - Shri Vallabh has clearly held that the petitioner - Municipality can dispossess plaintiff - Shri Vallabh after following the due procedure of law if the property in question is in its ownership. It is also submitted that without proving its ownership, the petitioner - Municipality has illegally dispossessed the respondent-decree holders from the property in question and the said action of the petitioner - Municipality has rightly been set aside by the Executing Court while holding that the petitioner - Municipality has (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (10 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] dispossessed the respondent-decree holders from the property in question without following the due process of law.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the summons upon the respondent-decree holder Shri Vallabh has never been served on him and the procedure laid down under Section 250 of the Act of 1959 has not been followed and, therefore, the findings of the Executing Court to this effect are perfectly justified and not liable to be interfered with in any manner. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the Executing Court has rightly ordered for restoring the possession of the property in question to the respondent-decree holders and has also rightly ordered for awarding compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh to the respondent-decree holders.
Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The petitioners have opposed the application filed by the respondent-decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC before the Executing Court on three grounds i.e. (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (11 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] (A) that the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC is not maintainable as it is not accompanied with the application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC; (B) that the judgment preceding the decree cannot be looked into for the purpose of interpreting it and (C) that the petitioners before evicting the respondent-decree holders from the property in question have followed the due process of law as given under Section 203 of the Act of 1959, which applies for eviction of encroachers upon any property belonging to the Municipality.
The Executing Court has rejected ground (A) raised by the petitioners while holding that the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC can be filed independently without filing any application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. The Executing Court has also concluded that as the respondent-decree holders were out of possession from the disputed property and for the purpose of recovery of the possession, only remedy available to them was to file application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC, which is more efficacious remedy available to them. It is also held that it is the sole discretion of the respondent-decree holders whether they want to get assistance of the court under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC or they want to proceed under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. The Executing Court has (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (12 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] further observed that the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC was filed by the respondent-decree holders during the pendency of application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC filed by them prior to it and the Executing Court has dismissed the application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC with a direction to separately register the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC in the presence of the petitioners, however, they have not raised any objection at that point of time and, as such, the said objection of the petitioners is without any basis. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Executing Court has rightly held that the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC can be filed independently without even filing application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. It is to be noticed that in any decree for injunction, the Executing Court can exercise powers under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Admittedly, the respondent- decree holders are in possession of a decree of injunction and, as such, they have every right to move separate application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC. Otherwise also, Order 21 of CPC, dealing with the execution of decree and orders, nowhere prohibits a decree holder from filing independent application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC.
(Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM)
(13 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] Apart from that, the Executing Court has ordered for registering the application of the respondent-decree holders preferred under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC independently in the presence of petitioners and they have not raised any objection at that point of them, therefore, now they cannot claim that the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC is not maintainable as it is not accompanied by application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC. It is noticed that while dismissing the application of the respondent-decree holders filed under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC vide order dated 30.9.2013, the Executing Court has held as under :
"19- mDr mica/k dh jks'kuh esa ns[kk tk; rks ekuuh; vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; o fMØh dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr gqbZ ;k ugha] /kkjk 47 lhihlh ds rgr tkWp dk fo"k; gSA bu lc rF;ksa dh fLFkfr ckn tkWp gh Li"V gksxhA ijUrq fMØhnkj }kjk izLrqr fMØh fu"iknu izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 21 fu;e 11 lhihlh mijksDr foospukuqlkj iks"k.kh; ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ftlds laca/k esa fMØhnkj vf/koDrk dh Hkh lgefr jgh gSA vr% izkFkhZ JhoYyHk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fMØh fu"iknu iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 21 fu;e 32 ¼5½ lhihlh i`Fkd ls ntZ dj tkWp fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA @@vkns'k@@ 20- Qyr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj ewy fu"iknu izkFkZuk i= iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS o flfoy fyfid dks funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd] fMØhnkj JhoYyHk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 21 fu;e 32 ¼5½ lhihlh i`Fkd ls fofo/k nhokuh izdj.k ntZ dj U;k;ky; ds le{k tkWp gsrq is'k djsA ewy fu"iknu izkFkZuk i= ls lacf/kr i=koyh Qsly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQ~rj jgsA "(Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM)
(14 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] The petitioners have not challenged the said order passed by the Executing Court on 30.9.2013 at any point of time. It is well settled that the principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings as held in Bhanu Kumar Jain and Chhabil Das's cases (supra). In such circumstances, the petitioners are estopped from raising such objection that the application filed by the respondent-decree holders under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC is not maintainable as it is not accompanied by application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC.
Otherwise also, this Court is of the opinion that the court while dealing with the execution matters need not to take a narrow view and should always ignore the little technical errors as the principal function of a court is to deliver justice and not to deny justice on technical grounds.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the findings of the Executing Court while dealing with ground (A) raised by the petitioners are not liable to be interfered with.
Rejecting the ground (B) raised by the petitioners, the Executing Court while referring to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of this (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (15 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] Court has held that a decree is nothing but a formal expression of judgment and reasoning provided in the judgment can be imported to understand the true meaning of a decree.
I am also of the opinion that for the purpose of drawing true meaning of a decree, it would always be useful to take into consideration the reasonings provided in the judgment. In such circumstances, the findings arrived at by the Executing Court on this issue are not liable to be interfered with.
The Executing Court while rejecting the ground (C) raised on behalf of the petitioners has observed as under :
"A careful reading of the above-
mentioned paragraphs of the DJ Court Judgment would make it clear that the District Court, Jaisalmer held that over the disputed property, open and continuous possession of DH is evident and proved; that it is also evident and proved that DH had a petrol pump over the disputed property in the past; that there is no evidence which shows that DD had dispossessed DH from the disputed property in the past; that it is also proved and evident that DD had knowledge of the continuous and uninterrupted possession of DH over the disputed property; that DD didn't produce any title document to show that the disputed property is part of Khasra no.193 and that this disputed property was handed over to them by the (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (16 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] revenue department; that for the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that DH had forged title documents in relation to the disputed property and on the basis of those forged documents DH is claiming possession over the disputed property, even in that case DD don't have power to dispossess DH from the disputed property without showing their ownership over the disputed property; that in the absence of any evidence to show the ownership rights over the disputed property on the part of DD, DH cannot be termed as encroachers over the disputed property until and unless DD gets their ownership right proved over the said property; that according to the Municipal Act provisions, any open land within the limits of municipal area is termed as land belonging to that municipality, but it is not found that the disputed property had been an open land; that DH is entitled to obtain a perpetual injunction against DD in relation to the disputed property, and DD can dispossess DH from the disputed property if DD can prove its ownership over the said property by following due process of law.
The above analysis of the DJ Court Judgment makes it clear that there was a real dispute regarding ownership over the disputed property between the parties and that the possession of DH over the disputed property was categorically affirmed."
Lastly, after taking into consideration the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Executing Court has concluded as under :
(Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM)
(17 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] "In the light of the principles laid down in the above-mentioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that whenever there is a real and bonafide dispute regarding the title of any property, the due process of law would mean to approach ordinary civil court and get the issue of ownership adjudicated by such court. In the present case, as already discussed, the long, continuous and settled possession of DH was approved by the DJ Court Judgment (which attained finality). By no stretch of imagination, they were encroachers upon the disputed property. And going by the mandate of the decree-in-question, the due process of law for DD would mean that they should have approached the ordinary civil court first for the adjudication of title over the disputed property in their favour and only after obtaining favourable order from such court they were legally entitled to dispossess DH from the disputed property. But this course was not followed by DD. And hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the act of DD evicting DH from the disputed property by resorting to Section 203 of the Act was illegal and in clear violation of the decree-in-question. DD disobeyed the decree-in-question. DD had no right to evict DH from the disputed property summarily as is ordinarily done in the case of an encroacher over any government property."
After careful reading of the findings of the Executing Court, I do not find any illegality in the same as the Executing Court has rightly observed that a bonafide (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (18 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] dispute regarding title of the property exits between the petitioners and the respondent-decree holders and the same is evident from the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge and, in such circumstances, without proving the ownership over the property in question, the petitioners cannot resort to the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act of 1959 for the purpose of dispossessing the respondent-decree holders.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court that without proving their ownership over the property in question, the petitioners can resort to the procedure laid down under Section 203 of the Act of 1959 for evicting the respondent-decree holders from the property in question.
So far as the finding of the learned Civil Judge regarding ineffective or non service of notice upon the respondent-decree holder Shri Vallabh under Section 250 of the Act of 1959 is concerned, the same is based on certain facts, which are not in dispute, hence, the same is also not liable to be interfered with.
So far as the direction issued by the Executing Court of paying compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh to the respondent-decree holders is concerned, I am of the (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (19 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] opinion that the Executing Court has erred in issuing the said direction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly argued that without determination of actual loss caused to the respondent-decree holders, the Executing Court has illegally ordered for paying compensation to them to the tune of rupees one lakh. The Executing Court has failed to elaborate that as to how it has come to the conclusion that the respondent-decree holders had suffered a loss to the tune of rupees one lakh.
In the application under Order 21 Rule 32 (5) CPC, the respondent-decree holders have vaguely mentioned that they had suffered a loss of rupees one lakh fifty thousand on account of their illegal eviction from the property in question, however, no proof is produced to prove the actual loss suffered by them.
It appears that the Executing Court has ordered for awarding compensation to the respondent-decree holders while resorting to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 (3) CPC, however, Order 21 Rule 32 (3) CPC speaks about attached property and provides that the compensation may be awarded to the decree holder out of the proceeds in case the attached property is sold. In the present case, neither the property in question has been attached nor (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (20 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] the same has been sold and, in such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Executing Court has erred in awarding compensation to respondent-decree holders to the tune of rupees one lakh while resorting to the provisions under Order 21 Rule 32 (3) CPC. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, on which, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance are concerned, they are of no help to the petitioners.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asikali Akbarali Gilani's case (supra) was considering the matter regarding encroachments on different places, however, in the present case, as observed earlier, the decree holders cannot be termed as encroachers until and unless the petitioner - Municipality proves its ownership over the disputed property.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the matter wherein the Municipal Corporation concerned has violated the procedure while demolishing a building and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there was any illegality in the procedure of demolishing the building, the Municipal Corporation can be asked to pay compensation, however, the illegal (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) (21 of 21) [CW-7140/2022] structure raised earlier cannot be permitted to be re- erected. In the present case, the situation is all together different as the Executing Court has not granted any permission to the respondent-decree holders to raise construction but only restored their possession.
In Kanti Chand Sharma's case (supra), this Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner while observing that the petitioner has himself removed the encroachments and goods from the disputed land and he acknowledged those facts by giving a receipt of this effect to the municipal authorities. The facts of the present case are all together different from the facts of the above- referred case.
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is partly allowed and the direction given by the Executing Court of restoring possession of the disputed property to the respondent-decree holders and other consequential directions are hereby affirmed, however, the direction to pay compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh to the respondent-decree holders is set aside.
Stay petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J ms rathore (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:14:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)