Kamaluddin And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22398 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54665
 
Court No. - 22
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6550 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Kamaluddin And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The issue raised in the present petition arises out of a suit filed by the respondent being Suit No.31 of 1980 wherein an order came to be passed dismissing the suit on 10.07.1985. The said judgment was challenged in an appeal being Civil Appeal No.104 of 1985 wherein the appellate Court set aside the judgment dated 23.07.1987 and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff in his favour and against the present petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said judgment passed in Civil appeal No.104 of 1985 by preferring a second appeal being Second Appeal No.577 of 1987. The said second appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.03.2019. The second appellate Court upheld the order of the first appellate Court and affirmed the decree of cancellation of sale deed and also of eviction order passed against the petitioner herein. The said judgment dated 13.03.2019 has attained finality. In execution of the said judgment, an eviction order dated 10.07.2023 has been passed against the petitioners which is impugned in the present petition.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in collateral, the land in question was held to be that of Gram Samaj and thus, no eviction could have been directed, although, he states that the petitioners have already been evicted in pursuance to the impugned order dated 10.07.2023.

4. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the second appellate Court had considered all the issues and while dismissing the second appeal had affirmed the decree of cancellation of sale deed and also that of eviction. The relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties stood crystalized by the judgment of the first appellate Court as affirmed by the second appellate Court. The issue with regard to the ownership cannot be raised in execution proceedings by the tenant who claims right over the property as a tenant as is the case in the present petition.

5. No error can be seen in the executing Court order dated 10.07.2023, which has merely executed the decree passed in favour of the respondent. No good ground for interference is made out. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.8.2023

nishant