Chattisgarh High Court
Daulatam Vastrakar vs Nira Bai on 14 January, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 235 of 2024
1 - Daulatam Vastrakar S/o Vishram Prasad, Aged About 69 Years Head Clerk,
R/o Village- Koni, C.G. Vidyut Mandal, Village Koni, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Nira Bai W/o Bisahu Lal Aged About 77 Years
2 - Harishchandra, Aged About 60 Years
3 - Ramchandra, Aged About 55 Years
4 - Ramesh Chandra, Aged About 57 Years
5 - Dinesh Chandra Aged About 49 Years
6 - Umesh Chandra, Aged About 47 Years
Respondent No. 2 to 6 are S/o. Bisahu Lal,
All R/o Village- Chhote Koni, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
Order Sheet
14.01.2025 Ms. Madhunisha Singh, counsel for appellant.
Mr. Rahul Mishra, counsel for respondents.
Heard.
This appeal is listed on application for urgent hearing
submitted on 11.01.2025.
As on 11.01.2025 was not working day and thereafter the
next day was Sunday, the appeal was listed on first working day
i.e. on Monday - 13.01.2025. On 13.01.2025, learned counsel for
respondents sought time on the ground that as the case was
listed in the morning, he was not possessing the file and on his
request, the case is listed today.
Learned counsel for appellant would submit that without
following due process fo law, permanent construction of appellant
has been demolished with the help of police. Police is having no
authority under the law to get the permanent construction
demolished, which is subject matter of the civil suit filed before
the trial Court and the steps of demolition of permanent
construction of appellant has been taken only under the pressure
and influence of respondents.
Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission
of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that affidavit of
respondent No.5 has been filed. In the affidavit it is categorically
pleaded that after the judgment and decree passed in the first
appeal dated 31.10.2012, execution proceeding has been filed. In
the execution proceeding, the appellant was noticed, he caused
appearance before the Executing Court and in the execution
proceeding he was directed to handover the possession of suit
property. Possession warrant was also issued, however,
possession was not handed over and thereafter the respondent
No.5 make a mention before the Executing Court for providing
possession in presence of police.
Learned Executing Court has passed order accordingly
directing Superintendent of Police to provide possession to
respondent No.5 with the help of police, upon which,
Superintendent of Police has also submitted a letter mentioning
that for providing police help, fees of Rs.11,471/- +GST is
required to be deposited to which the respondent No.5 deposited
in the account of Superintendent of Police and obtained the
receipt. Pursuant to deposit of the requisite fees, notice was
affixed in the premises of the appellant for handing over the
possession 08.01.2025, however, on date also the possession
was not handed over and thereafter the police officials came in
spot along with force and handed over the possession of the suit
property to respondent No.5 and thereafter it was demolished.
Respondent No.5 has also erected the fencing of barbed wire for
which he has also enclosed the photographs showing that the suit
property is covered with the fencing erected by respondent No.5.
At this stage, learned counsel for appellant submits that
respondent No.5 is raising construction over the suit property and
therefore, the status of the property may be protected till the case
is heard on admission.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for
respective parties and considering the nature of dispute raised,
purely as an interim measure it is directed that the status quo as
it exists today with respect to possession and status of the suit
property shall be maintained by the parties, till the next date of
hearing.
List this case in the next week.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
sBalram
