In the present writ petition, the writ Petitioner also had taken a very unreasonable and absurd plea that as per the report of the Commissioner available at the spot the decretal land/suit land is bounded on the three sides, i.e. north, south and east by Nullah where as the said three sides boundaries of the suit land as per Schedule 'A' of the decree, i.e. north, south and east are:
North: By the new Govt, road,South: By the Mahatama Gandhi Avenue Road,East: By the new Govt. Road.
Admittedly, the suit land/decretal land is situated in the heart of the Imphal City and also within the area covered by the Master Plan prepared by the Planning and Development Authority. The Manipur Town and Country Planning Act is very much extended to the area where the suit land or the decretal land is situated. The word 'Road' is defined in Clause (XXIII) of Section 2 of the Manipur Town and Country Planning Act, 1975. Clause (XXIII) of Section 2 reads as follows:
"road" mans any high way, street, lane, pathway, alley, passage way, carriage way, square, bridge, whether private or public, whether thorough fare or not, whether existing or proposed in any scheme, and includes all bunds, channels, ditches, drains, culverts, side walks and traffic islands.
Therefore, 'road' includes nullah/drain. As such there is absolutely no discrepancy in describing the said three boundaries of the suit land, i.e. north, south and east in the said report of the Commissioner and Schedule 'A' of the decree dated 22.9.1982. Regarding the western boundary of the suit land, as discussed above there is absolutely no difficulty in finding on the spot. It is also abundantly clear from the reports of the Commissioners who had been assisted by the Revenue Officers about the boundaries of the suit land/decretal land on the spot. The Executing Court by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 very rightly, rejected the objections of the writ Petitioners regarding the difficulties in finding out the boundaries of the suit land/decretal land on the spot, by giving cogent reasons depending upon the appreciation of the facts.
Citation;2006(1)GLT252; Air 2006(noc)1367 Gauhati
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (IMPHAL BENCH)
Decided On: 06.09.2005
Appellants: Kshetrimayum Ibohal Singh and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Manipur and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Manipur and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T. Nandakumar Singh , J.
1. By this writ petition, the Petitioners are assailing the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-II), Manipur East dated 31.5.2004 passed in Execution Case No. 1/83/9/1983. This case has a very chequer history. The present writ Petitioners and the proforma Respondent No. 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased, Ksh. Tomba Singh, against whom late Ph. Ibomcha Singh filed O.S. No. 18 of 1960 for declaration of his title over the suit land and possession thereof by evicting late Ksh. Tomba Singh with the demolition of all the structures standing thereon and also for recovery of mesne profit from the date of the institution of the suit till its final adjudication and disposal, and also for declaration that the findings of the Munsif III in O.S. No. 75 of 1957 that the Registered Sale Deed dated 20.9.1955 is a forged one have no bearing on the present suit and no binding effect to the Plaintiff (late Ph. Ibomcha Singh). The principal Respondents 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the Plaintiff, i.e. late Ph. Ibomcha Singh. It would be very clear that the writ Petitioners and late Ksh. Tomba Singh are successful in protracting the litigation for about 45 years and thereby successfully depriving the fruit of the decree to the principal Respondents 2 and 3 for a number of decades by enjoying the monthly rents in several thousands of rupees from the persons allowed by them (writ Petitioners and late Ksh. Tomba Singh) to reside in the suit land.
2. The said O.S. No. 18/60/42/70/44 of 1972 was dismissed by the trial court, i.e. erstwhile Sub-Judge No. 1, Manipur by passing judgment and decree dated 14.12.1973. A reference being Civil Reference No. 2 of 1974 was made before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 14.12.1973 as the incumbents of the Appellate Courts, i.e. the Court of District Judge, Manipur and Court of Addl. District Judge, Manipur in the year 1974 could not hear the Appeals. The Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.C. Das) had finally heard the Civil Reference No. 2 of 1974 by converting into an Appeal and passed the final judgment and decree dated 22.9.1982 by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.1973 thereby decreeing the O.S. No. 18/60/42/70/44 of 1972. Relevant portions of the decree dated 22.9.1982 passed in Civil Reference No. 2 of 1974 are quoted hereunder:
Upon hearing of this Appeal in a Division Bench before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria, and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.C. Das, two of the judges of this Court on the 7th, 8th, 9th and 22nd day of September, 1982. It is ordered and decreed that the appeal stands allowed by decreeing the suit and the impugned judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge (1) Manipur passed on 14.12.1973 are set aside, and that Plaintiff had validly purchased the suit land described in Schedule "A" appended to the plaint from the Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff is entitled to the khas possession of the suit land by evicting the principal Defendant No. 1 therefrom with the removal of the structures thereon.It is hereby ordered that the principal Defendant No. 1 be evicted from the suit land by removing the structures standing thereon and that the plainiff be put into possession thereof (of the suit land).Respondent No. 1 shall pay cost of the suit as well of the proceeding.SCHEDULE "A"Land under patta No. 305 I.W.T. plot No. 374/24 of the Imphal Municipality, area N-15, S-31, E-130 and W-130. Bounded on the north by New Govt. Road, on the south by the Mahatma Gandhi Avenue, on the east by the New Govt. Road, on the west by the plot No. 401/24 under patta No. 337 Imphal Municipality belonging to the principal Defendant.It is further ordered and decreed that the Respondent No. 1 do pay to the Appellants a sum of Rs. 264.87 (as per details at foot) being the amount of costs incurred by the Appellants in this Court with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum, from this date until realization. And it is further ordered and decreed that the Respondent No. 1 do pay to the Appellants a sum of Rs. 238.87 being the amount of the costs incurred by the Plaintiffs/Appellants in the Lower Court with interest thereon at the rate aforesaid from the date of the decree of the said lower Court until realization.Dated this 22nd day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two.
3. The principal Respondents 2 and 3 are not yet enjoying the fruit of the decree dated 22.9.1982 because of the very calculated moves of late Ksh. Tomba Singh and the writ Petitioners for protracting the execution proceedings. We may recall the observations of Justice A.P. Mishra in Shree Nath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors. (Civil Appeal against the judgment and Order of the M.P. High Court in Civil Revision arising out of an Order passed in Execution Proceedings), reported in MANU/SC/0286/1998 : (1998) 4 SCC 543. Para-1 and 2 of the SCC in Shree Nath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors. (Supra) are quoted as follows:
The seeker of justice many a time has to take long circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and the procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged till the last ladder of the said hierarchy for receiving justice but even here he only breathes fear of receiving the fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to receive. The reach this stage is in itself an achievement and satisfaction as he, by then has passed through a long arduous journey of the procedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain terrain with ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in the execution proceedings the morose is writ large on his face. What looked inevitable to him to receive it at his hands distance is deluded back into the horizon. The creation of the hierarchy of courts was for a reasonable objective for conferring greater satisfaction to the parties that errors, if any, by any of the lower courts under the scrutiny of a higher court be rectified and long procedural laws also with good intention to exclude and filter out all unwanted who may be the cause of obstruction to such seeker in his journey to justice.2. The courts within their limitation have been interpreting the procedural laws so as to conclude all possible disputes pertaining to the decretal property which is within its fold in an execution proceeding, i.e., including what may be raised later by way of another bout of litigations through a fresh suit. Similarly legislatures equally are also endeavouring by amendments to achieve the same objective. The present case is one in this regard. Keeping this in view, we now proceed to examine the present case.
4. In the instant case also the writ Petitioners has dragged the execution proceedings of the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1982 to the highest Court of the country, i.e. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 3 (three) times by late Ksh. Tomba Singh and present writ Petitioners against some interlocutory orders passed by the executing court of the present decree dated 22.9.1982 and orders of this Court for rejecting the revision petitions filed against the inter locutory orders passed by the Executing Court. As observed by the Hon'ble Mr. A.P. Mishra in Shree Nath's case, the seeker of justice, i.e. late Ph. Ibomcha Singh and the present Respondent No. 2 and 3, many a time have to take a long circuitous routes both on account of hierarchy of the courts and procedural law for getting the fruit of the decree dated 22.9.1982.
5. While proceeding the execution Case No. 1/83/9/1983 for execution of the decree dated 22.9.1982 in the court of the Subordinate Judge No. II, Manipur, on 15.9.1983 JD/late Ksh. Tomba Singh (predecessor in interest of the present writ Petitioners and proforma Respondent No. 4) made an application to the executing court for deputing a reasonable officer to demarcate the suit land in order to enable the JD himself to dismantle his building on the suit land and deliver possession of the suit land to the decree holder Ph. Ibomcha Singh (predecessor in interest of the proforma Respondents 2 and 3). The learned executing court believing the bona fide and sweet words of the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh, passed an order directing the SDC. Imphal West (C) to demarcate and identify the suit land on the ground. It may be pertinent to see the order of the learned trial court dated 4.10.1961 passed in O.S. No. 18/60/70/44 of 1972 which reads as follows:
Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and their counsels are present. The counsels representing the parties agree not to make further improvements. So it is ordered that the Defendant No. 1 (Ksh. Tomba Singh) is restrained from raising any more building as or improving it by further construction or extension and that the building be kept status quo as it now stands. Informed.
Admittedly, the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh was restrained from raising any more buildings/improving it by further construction or extension and he also had been ordered to keep the buildings constructed on the suit land status quo. As seen from the decree dated 22.9.1982 quoted above, the suit land is bounded on the 3 (three) sides i.e. north, south and east by the Government Roads and as such the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh as well as decree holders are stating that there is no difficulty in finding out the said three sides/boundaries of the suit land, i.e. north, south and east on the spot. But there appears to be a little problem in finding out the western boundary of the suit land because of the unauthorized raising/construction/extension of the buildings constructed on the suit land and also by raising/constructing buildings on the western side of the suit land by the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh in disobedience of the said order of the trial court dated 4.10.1961.
6. As prayed by the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh for demarcation of the suit land more particularly western boundary of the suit land so as to enable him to dismantle his buildings standing on the suit land and deliver the possession of the suit land to the decree holder within a shortest time, the SDC, Imphal West (C) as ordered by the executing court carried out demarcation of the suit land in presence of the parties, i.e. JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh and his L. Rs. viz present writ Petitioners, and submitted his report dated 16.11.1983 to the executing court. A copy of the said report of the SDC, Imphal West (C) dated 16.11.1983 is available at Annexure-B/4 to the affidavit in opposition filed by the Respondents 2 and 3. As per the report of the SDC, Imphal West (C) dated 16.11.1983, there is a gully covered by the C.S. Dag No. 2205 of Seat No. 15. Imphal Municipality on the western side of the suit land in between the suit land and the land of the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh lying to the west of the suit land to be covered by C.S. dag No. 2206 and the said gully had been encroached by the JD. As such, on the western side of the suit land, there are structures constructed by JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh. The SDC. Imphal West CO who demarcated the suit land had fixed pages (10 in number) indicating the boundaries of the suit land in the presence of the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh who did not make any objections to the fixing of the said pages. The operative portion of the said report of the SDC. Imphal West (C) dated 16.11.1983 reads as follows:
3 (three) iron pages on the southern demarcating points of the areas of the said 2 (two) Pattas and 3 (three) iron pages on the southern demarcating points of the areas of the said 2 (two) Pattas as per present relevant Land Records (Jamabandi, dag Chitha and Map) have been fixed in the presence of the parties and the Bailiff of the Court.Another 2(two) iron pages on the southern demarcating points and 2 (two) iron pages on the Northern demarcating points of the area under Patta No. 374/24 corresponding to New Patta No. 268 covered by CS Dag No. 2205 of Sheet No. 15 Imphal Municipality belongs to Shri. Pheiroijam Ibomcha Singh (Decree holder through his L.Rs) as per Schedule "A" and description of the suit-land given bv the Hon'ble Court of the Sub-Judge II. Manipur in his Execution Case No. 1/1982/19 of 1983 have also been fixed in the [presence of the parties and the Bailiff of the Court excluding the areas of the Govt. Road (Eastern boundary of the area under demarcation), the Gully's area (western side) and the areas of the nullahs (Southern and Northern side) of the suit-land under demarcation.While fixing the pages (10 Nos) i.e. 5 pages on the southern side and 5 pages on the northern side at the demarcating points of the areas of the said 2 (two) Pattas, I do not find any claims/objections from the side of both parties.In the result, I have no alternative except to confirm the boundary pages fixed on the spot. Hence, I have confirmed the pages fixed on the spot.
7. The JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh who volunteered himself by filing an application on 15.9.1983 to the executing court for demarcating the suit land so as to enable him to deliver the possession of the suit land to the decree holder/Ph. Ibomcha Singh within the shortest time and who had been made to know the boundaries of the suit land on the spot by the SDC, Imphal West (C) as per his request, filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissing the execution case on the ground of alleged uncertainty of decree (i.e. uncertainty of western boundary of the suit land) and the said application was registered as Judl. Misc. Case No. 44 of 1984. After hearing the parties at length, the executing court dismissed the Judl. Misc. Case No. 44 of 1984 by passing a reasoned judgment and order dated 30.4.1984. A copy of the said order dated 30.4.1984 is available as Annexure-B/5 to the affidavit in opposition of the Respondents 2 and 3, and the executing Court also passed an order dated 30.4.1984 directing the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh to deliver khash possession of the suit land to the decree holder/Ph. Ibomcha Singh by demolishing the standing structures. A copy of the said order dated 30.4.1984 passed in Execution case No. 1./83/9/83 is available as Annexure-B/6 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents 2 and 3.
8. After the SDC, Imphal West (C), demarcated the suit land in the presence of the parties by fixing the 10 pages around the boundaries of the suit land, to which the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh had no objections on the spot, and submitted his report dated 16.11.1983, the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh filed an application to cross-examine the SDC, Imphal West (C). Accordingly the SDC, Imphal West (C) was examined and was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned Counsel of the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh. In the cross-examination of the SDC, Imphal West, (C), the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh did not succeed in dismantling the statements of the SDC, Imphal West, (C) and his report dated 16.11.1983. The learned executing court passed the said order dated 30.4.1984 after taking into consideration of the report of the SDC, Imphal West (C), dated 16.11.1983 and his statements by directing the JD to deliver the khash possession of the suit land. As stated above, the western boundary of the suit land is the only boundary which is alleged by the JD) not cleared to him on the spot even if he had been made to know the western boundary of the suit land by fixing pages bv the SDC. Imphal West (C) during the course of the demarcation of the suit land in his (JD) presence and also he (JD) had no objection to the fixing of the said pages on the western boundary of the suit land. The operative portions of the order of the executing court dated 30.4.1984 directing the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh to deliver the khash possession of the suit land to the decree holder reads follows:
As the J.D. has expressed his preparedness to dismantle the structure standing on the suit land, if the suit land can be identified, now the court can ask the J.D. to dismantle the structure standing on the suit land of which he is the best person to know the suit land having been identified by the Revenue Officer which was sent bv the direction of the court.Thus, the J.D. is to deliver Khas possession of the suit land to the D.H. by demolishing the structure standing thereon at his own costs.The whole process of disputing revenue officer such as the S.D.C.I.W(C) for demarcating the suit land described in schedule 'A' of the decree out of the land covered by dag No. 2205 was done subsequent to the application made by the J.D. on 15th September, 1983. The examination of O. Noyon Singh, S.D.C.I.W(C) as a court witness was also done after the J.D. filed the application on 19th December, 1983 for calling the said Revenue officer as a witness. From all these two applications, it may be presumed that the J.D. is trying to delay the execution of the decree and he knowingly avoiding the execution of the same.Let this order be made known to the J.D. and to comply that he dismantles the structure standing on the suit land and deliver khas possession of the same to the D'.II. without fail before 10th May, 1984.
9. The JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh, who once volunteered himself to deliver the khash possession of the suit land to the decree holder, went to the extent of filing Civil Revisions being C. Revision Petition No. 10 of 1984 against the said judgment and order of the Executing court doted 30.4.1984 directing him to deliver the khash possession of the suit land to the decree holder before this Court (Imphal Bench). Over and above, the JD also filed a Civil Revision Petition No. 8 of 1984 against the said judgment and order of the executing court dated 30.4.1984 for rejecting the Judl. Misc. case No. 44 of 1984 filed by the JD under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of alleged uncertainty of decree. This Court after hearing both the parties at length passed the judgment and order dated 28.5.1984 for dismissing the Civil Revision Petition No. 10 of 1984 and also another judgment and order dated 28.5.1984 for dismissing the Civil revision Petition No. 8 of 1984. This Court while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition No. 10 of 1984 by passing judgment and order dated 28.5.1984 observed that "this Court is not excepted to act as an expert so as to override identification, location and demarcation made by the SDC who was deputed at the instance of the Petitioner/JD (Ksh. Tomba Singh) and who was cross-examined in the court. For the reasons discussed above, the Civil Revision application is found to be without merit and it is rejected and Rule discharged". After rejecting the Civil Revision No. 8 of 1984 and Civil Revision No. 10 of 1984 by this Court by passing two separate orders having the same dated 28.5.1984, the JD filed 2(two) SLPs being No. 6617 of 1984. and No. 6618 of 1984 against the said orders of this Court dated 28.5.1984 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Both the SLPs. i.e. SLP No. 6617 of 1984 and SLP No. 6618 of 1984 were dismissed on 14.6.84.
10. After the said SLPs were dismissed on 14.6.1984 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the executing court passed an order dated 23.6.1984 for providing armed Police Force necessary for delivery possession of the suit land to the decree holder after hearing both the parties at length. A copy of the said order of the executing court order dated 23.6.1984 is available as Anenxure-B/1 to the affidavit in opposition of the Respondents 2 and 3. As seen above objection to the execution of the decree dated 22.9.1982 on the ground of vagueness or/difficulty in finding out the western side of the suit land on the spot had been finally decided by this Court under the judgment and order dated 28.5.1984 bypassing 2 separate orders in Civil Revision Petition No. 8 of 1984 and Civil Revision Petition No. 10 of 1984 which had been upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the said 2(two) SLPs on 14.6.1984.
11. Again the JD filed Civil Revision No. 173 of 1984 against the said order of the executing court dated 23.6.1984 before this Court and this Court for the 3rd time passed judgment and order dated 10.12.1984 for rejecting the objections to the execution of the decree dated by 22.9.1982 by passing a consensus order dated 10.12.1984 which reads as follows:
(i) Operation of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge No. II, Manipur, shall remain suspended for a period of two months commencing to-day. Within this period, the judgment debtor-Petitioner shall demolish and remove the structures on the decretal land and hand-over possession thereof amicably to the decree-holder opposite-party; and(ii) In the event of the failure of the judgment-debtor-Petitioner to carry out the undertaking under-written in Clause (i) above, the aforesaid order dated 23.6.1984 shall be given effect to without further reference to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs of the proceeding in this Court
12. The JD after having not successful in objecting the execution of decree dated 22.9.1982 mainly on the ground that western boundaries of the suit land is not clear on the spot by approaching the High Court for the three times and the Supreme Court by filing the said two SLPs, again filed an application being Review Application No. 27 of 1985 for reviewing the said consensus order dated 10.12.1984 passed in Civil Revision No. 173 of 1984. This Court had rejected the review application No. 27 of 1985 by passing the judgment and order dated 11.9.1987. A copy of the said order dated 11.9.1987 is available at Annexure-B/3 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents 2 and 3. Against the said order of this Court dated 11.9.1987. an SLP (C) No. 11887 of 1987 was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had disposed of the said SLP by passing judgment and order dated 11.5.1992 which is quoted in entirety in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division No. 11), Manipur East dated 31.5.2004 passed in the Execution Case No. 1/83/9/1983 for executing the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1982. The Apex Court in its judgment and order dated 11.5.1992 had clearly mentioned that there is no ambiguity and vagueness in the boundaries of the suit land and it is also observed that it will be proper for the executing court to appoint a Commissioner to demarcate the plot and put the decree holder in possession thereof and also in view of the fact that proceedings had already been greatly protracted, the Executing Court will take expeditious steps to mark out the plot and put the decree holder in possession.
13. In compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated 11.5.1992, the learned executing court passed an order dated 7.5.2002 for appointing one Shri. M. Bahadur Singh. Advocate as Commissioner for causing demarcation on 29.6.2002. On 28.1.2003, JD/present writ Petitioner also filed an application before the executing court in Execution Case No. 1/83/9/83 for execution of the decree in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in its judgment and order dated 11.5.1992 passed in SLP No. 11887 of 1987 by appointing a Commissioner to demarcate the suit land and asking the Commissioner to identify the suit land by submitting his report to the executing court and thereafter decree holders are to be put into possession of the suit land after his demarcation of the suit land by the Commissioner to the satisfaction of the Court.
14. Mr. Bahadur Singh, Commissioner appointed by the Court submitted his two reports dated 05.07.2003 and 4.8.2003 after necessary demarcation of the suit land with the assistance of the Revenue Staffs. The executing court after the perusal of the said reports of the Commissioner, Bahadur again passed another order dated 24.3.2004 for appointing another Commissioner, Shri. Ng. Premkumar Singh, Advocate for demarcation of the suit land with the assistance of the Revenue Staffs. Shri. Ng. Premkumar Singh submitted his report dated 28.3.2004.
15. The learned executing court also examined the Commissioner appointed by him and allowed to be cross-examined by the writ Petitioners. The executing court also examined the Revenue Officer, one Shri. Th. Santikumar Singh who assisted the Commissioner. The learned executing court had discussed the reports of the said Commissioner, the statements of the Commissioner, statements of the Revenue Staffs assisting the Commissioner and also the earlier orders of this Court and passed the impugned reasoned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 thereby rejecting the repeated objections to the execution of the decree dated 22.9.1982 by JD (Late Ksh. Tomba Singh and writ Petitioners) only on the ground of discrepancy found on the western side of the suit land on the spot and ordered that bailiff of the court to deliver the possession of the suit land/decretal land to the decree holders, i.e. present Respondents 2 and 3, by directing the JD to dismantle the structures standing on the suit land till 30.6.2004 and on or before 10.7.2004 by demolishing all the structures standing in side the suit land. Against the impugned judgment and order of the learned executing court dated 31.5.2004 passed in Execution Case No. 1/83/9/83 filed the present writ petition.
16. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, this Court, while dealing with the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not sitting as an Appellate Court against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the learned executing court. The power of the High Court in a petition of the present nature under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are circumscribed by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court which would be considered in the following para.
17. The Apex Court in Modh Yunus v. Modh. Mustaqim and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0066/1983 : (1983) 4 SCC 566 held that supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to seeing that an inferior court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority, and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record. must less an error of law. A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction under this Article. In exercising supervisory powers under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct error of law in the decision.
18. The Apex Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, reported in MANU/SC/0531/1986 : (1986) 4 SCC 447 held that no doubt. In exercise of the jurisdictions under Article 227 High Court can go into the question of fact or look into the evidence if justice so required in the cases where the findings is perverse or in the clear absence of reasons depend upon the appreciations of evidence, and that no reasonable person properly instructed in law would have come to such a findings. In that case, the Apex Court further held that if 2 (two) views are possible if the views of the trial court is one of the possible views, the view/decision adopted by the appellate court should be allowed to prevail. Coming back to the present case as discussed above and on careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 of the trial court it would be seen very clearly that the findings/decisions of the trial court is based on good reasons depend upon the appreciations of evidence.
19. The Apex Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Pravinbhai Jasbhai and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0966/1997 : (1997) 7 SCC 300 held that proceedings under Article 227 are not by way of appeal before the High Court and as such the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with only on questions of law that too involving patent errors of law. The Apex Court in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, reported in MANU/SC/0894/2002 : (2002) 8 SCC 400., paras-2 and 4 of which are quoted as under:
2. Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts below. The finding of fact being within the domain of the inferior tribunal, except where it is perverse recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the article is not called for.....
4. Needless to record that there is total unanimity of judicial precedents on the score that error must be that of law and patently on record committed by the inferior tribunal so as to warrant intervention it ought not to act as a court of appeal and there is no dissension or even a contra-note being sounded at any point of time till date. Incidentally, the illegality, if there be any, in an order of an inferior tribunal, it would however be a plain exercise of jurisdiction under the article to correct the same as otherwise the law courts would fail to subserve the needs of the society since illegality cannot even be countenanced under any circumstances.
20. The Apex Court in R.P.A. Valliammal v. R. Palanichami Nadar and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0479/1997 : (1997) 10 SCC 209 held that opportunity to raise an objection to executability of a decree can be raised under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure only once and repeated applications are unwarranted. In that case the Petitioners' mother's claim for right and title to the property having already been negated and that orders having become final, Petitioner cannot have any right higher than the mother herself had and it ought would not be opened to Petitioner to raise the contention thereafter. In the case in hand, the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and other applications filed by the JD/Ksh. Tomba Singh, for raising objections to executability of the decree dated 22.9.1982 passed by the High Court because of the difficulty in finding out the western boundaries of the suit land on the spot had been rejected by the executing court and confirmed by the High Court and Apex Court and in such case the present writ Petitioners who are not having no better right than late Ksh. Tomba Singh cannot be allowed to object the execution of the decree dated 22.9.1982 on the same ground which had already been decided by the executing court mentioned above and subsequently upheld by this Court by passing the orders mentioned above for three times and confirmed by the Supreme Court on the dismissal of the SLPs. Enough is enough. There must be an end.
21. The Apex Court in Pratibha Singh and Anr. v. Prasad and Anr. reported in MANU/SC/1098/2002 : (2003) 2 SCC 330 held that after all a successful Plaintiff should not be deprived of fruit of decree and any inadvertent error if there be any, not affecting the merit of the case, it may be corrected under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure by the Court which passed the decree by supplying the omissions. A decree of a competent court should not as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission. In the present there is no omission or accidental slip in the decree dated 22.9.1982 but the Respondents No. 2 and 3 are deprived of fruit of the decree because of endless objections. JD (late Ksh. Tomba Singh and the present writ Petitioners) on the same grounds which had already been rejected by the executing Court, this Court and Apex Court for a number of times.
22. The Apex Court in Narender Singh and Ors. v. Krishna Singh (dead) by L. Rs. and Anr. reported in MANU/SC/0569/2002 : (2002) 6 SCC 46, held that the Executing Court rejecting objections raised by the JD in execution proceedings to prevent decree holders from getting full benefits of the decree passed in their favour by giving clear and cogent reasons and no erroneous statements of fact found in the order passed by the executing court, the High Court in revisions was justified in declining to interfere with the order of the executing court. As discussed above in the present case also the executing court by giving the clear and cogent reasons passed the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 rejecting the objections raised by the JD in the execution proceedings of the decree dated 22.9.1982 to prevent the Respondents 2 and 3 from getting full benefits of the decree passed in their favour.
23. The Apex Court in Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0498/1997 : (1997) 5 SCC 76 held that the High Court can interfere with under Article 227 in the case of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arrived at a finding which has prevailed or passed on no material or resulting in manifest justice as regards findings of fact of inferior court. The High Court should not quash the judgment of the Subordinate Court merely on the ground that its findings of fact are erroneous. For sake of repetition, this Court further held that the findings of the trial court in the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 passed on clear and cogent reasons basing upon the evidence and further there is no erroneous assumption or acting beyond is jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the face of record in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004.
24. In the present writ petition, the writ Petitioner also had taken a very unreasonable and absurd plea that as per the report of the Commissioner available at the spot the decretal land/suit land is bounded on the three sides, i.e. north, south and east by Nullah where as the said three sides boundaries of the suit land as per Schedule 'A' of the decree, i.e. north, south and east are:
North: By the new Govt, road,South: By the Mahatama Gandhi Avenue Road,East: By the new Govt. Road.
Admittedly, the suit land/decretal land is situated in the heart of the Imphal City and also within the area covered by the Master Plan prepared by the Planning and Development Authority. The Manipur Town and Country Planning Act is very much extended to the area where the suit land or the decretal land is situated. The word 'Road' is defined in Clause (XXIII) of Section 2 of the Manipur Town and Country Planning Act, 1975. Clause (XXIII) of Section 2 reads as follows:
"road" mans any high way, street, lane, pathway, alley, passage way, carriage way, square, bridge, whether private or public, whether thorough fare or not, whether existing or proposed in any scheme, and includes all bunds, channels, ditches, drains, culverts, side walks and traffic islands.
Therefore, 'road' includes nullah/drain. As such there is absolutely no discrepancy in describing the said three boundaries of the suit land, i.e. north, south and east in the said report of the Commissioner and Schedule 'A' of the decree dated 22.9.1982. Regarding the western boundary of the suit land, as discussed above there is absolutely no difficulty in finding on the spot. It is also abundantly clear from the reports of the Commissioners who had been assisted by the Revenue Officers about the boundaries of the suit land/decretal land on the spot. The Executing Court by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2004 very rightly, rejected the objections of the writ Petitioners regarding the difficulties in finding out the boundaries of the suit land/decretal land on the spot, by giving cogent reasons depending upon the appreciation of the facts.
25. For the reasons discussed above, the present writ petition is ill-conceived and devoid of merit. Accordingly dismissed.
26. Send down the lower court records to the executing court forthwith.
No comments:
Post a Comment