Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9] The respondent nos.1 & 2 herein filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.5839/2004 thereby impugning the order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the executing Court. It was contended by the respondent nos.1 & 2 that the compromise decree had become in- executable because of sanction of new development plan which had come into force on 25.2.1993 wherein the Palkhi road was proposed to be widened by 15 meters and further modified and reduced to 9 meters. It was also contended in the writ petition that the decree also became in- executable in view of the provisions of Highway Act and in view of the reservation shown in the development plan to the existing position of Survey No.1/1-A, 1/1-A/2B2.

63] A perusal of the order passed by the Supreme

- 51 -

Court on 22/2/2016 indicates that the said Civil Appeals were arising out of the two proceedings. There was compromise decree dated 20/8/1979, passed by the Civil Court between the petitioners and Shri Saibaba Sansthan, Shirdi and another. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the respondent No.4 filed separate application for execution of the said compromise decree. The orders passed by the executing Court were challenged by the State of Maharashtra and the Tahsildar in Writ Petition No.5839/2004. By an order dated 31/7/2007, this Court remanded the matter back to the Executing Court for considering the issues raised by the contesting parties, keeping all the issues open. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the execution proceedings were disposed of by the executing Court. The orders passed by the Executing Court were again challenged before this High Court in Writ Petition No.5451/2009 and other companion Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners 64] By an order and judgment dated 2/7/2010 and 5/7/2010, this Court has observed that, considering the size of shops, unavailability of alternate accommodation and frustration of the decree due to inexecutability