Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Singariya vs Aditya Chitnis on 21 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 662 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJESH KASERA S/O SHRI NANDLAL JI KASERA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
29 RAMGHAT MARG GALI NO. 02 DISTRICT
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UMESH KASERA S/O SHRI NANDLAL JI KASERA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
29 RAMGHAT MARG GALI NO. 2, UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KRISHNABAI W/O SHRI CHANRAPRAKASH
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWORK 30 RAMGHAT MARG, GALI NO. 2,
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AJIJ RAHMAN @ BHAYYU BHAI S/O ABDULAGNI
SHEIKH OCCUPATION: LABOUR 29, RAMGHAT
MARG GALI NO. 2, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI MANISH MANANA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS.)
AND
1. SIRVI KSHTRIYA SAMAJ TRUST M.P. SHRI I.G.
YOGMAYA NAVDURGA MANDIR 3 RAMGHAT
UJJAIN DWARA ADHYAKSH SHANKARLAL S/O
GANPAT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST BHAWANIKHEDA, PARGANA,
BADNAWAR DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ADITYA S/O MADHAVRAV CHITNIS, AGED ABOUT
59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
CHINTAMAN, JAVASIYA, TEH. AND DISTT. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. M.P. SHASAN THROUGH DIJADHISH KOTHI
2
PALACE, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SAMDANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2.)
(SHRI RAJWARDHAN GAWDE, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.)
MISC. PETITION No. 712 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
JUNA GUJARATI LOHAR VISHWAKARMA SAMAJ SEVA
SAMITI THROUGH SECRETARY SHANKARLAL S/O LATE
SHRI NATHULAL SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO. 12, RAMGAHT
MARG KARTIK CHOWK UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AYUSHYAMAN CHOUDHARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER.)
AND
1. ADITYA S/O MADHAVRAO CHITNIS, AGED ABOUT
61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILALGE CHINTAMAN JAWASIA DISTT. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SIRVI KSHATRIYA SAMAJ TRUST THROUGH
SHANKARLAL S/O GANPAT, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST BHAVANI
KHED BADNAWAR DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT THROUGH
COLLECTOR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( S H R I RAJENDRA KUMAR SAMDANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1.)
(S HR I RAJWARDHAN GAWDE, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.)
MISC. PETITION No. 763 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MUKESH SINGARIYA S/O SHRI GOVIND DAS
3
SINGARIYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O 25/2
RAMGHAT MARG GALI NO. 2 UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER.)
AND
1. ADITYA CHITNIS S/O SHRI MADHA RAO CHITNIS,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
CHINTAMAN JAWASIA DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHIRVI KSHTRIY SAMAJ TRUST M.P. SH. I G
YOGMAYA NAV DURGA MANDIR RAMGHAT
U J J A I N THROUGH SHANKAR LAL S/O SHRI
GANPAT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BHAVANI
KHEDA, PARGANGA BADNAVAR, DISTRICT DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR
DISTRICT UJJAIN, KOTHI PALACE, UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SAMDANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1.)
(SHRI RAJWARDHAN GAWDE, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.)
These petitions coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
01. The petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging the order
dated 19.1.2023 whereby the learned Executing Court has refused to grant
interim protection to them and directed to handover the vacant possession of
their houses to the decree-holder.
02. The decree-holder - Aditya Chitnis filed civil suit No.12A/2010 before
the Civil Judge, Class-II against Sirvi Kshatriya Samaj Trust claiming himself to
be an owner of the land bearing Survey No. 2447 area 0.376 Hect. situated at
Patwari Halka No.24, Ujjain. According to the plaintiff, Sirvi Kshatriya Samaj
Trust fraudulently obtained the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.3.2003
and the same is liable to be declared as void. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded
that the suit land is an open land protected by fencing and trees and his
ancestral house is there on the land. The suit was contested by the Sirvi
Kshatriya Samaj Trust as well as by the Government and finally a judgment and
decree dated 17.1.2014 was passed in favour of the plaintiff.
03. The aforesaid decree was assailed by the Sirvi Kshatriya Samaj Trust
by way of First Appeal, Second Appeal and SLP before the apex Court and
remained unsuccessful. Now, the plaintiff has put the decree in execution for
taking possession of the land. The learned Executing Court issued possession
warrant in order to take possession of the suit land. Meanwhile, the present
petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC objecting the
decree on the ground that they are in possession of the houses which they
purchased vide registered sale-deeds. Therefore, unless their objections are
decided, the decree-holder be restrained from taking possession of their house.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
04. The Executing Court issued the possession warrant of the land. The
process server/Nazir went to the spot on 19.1.2023 and submitted the report
that there are as many as 150 houses constructed on the land and they were
advised to vacate the houses. Certain owners who were tenant have left the
house and certain owners put the locks and disappeared. Locks were put on
few houses and keys were handed over to the Court. Now, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of present petitions claiming that they are the
title-holder and under the garb of execution proceedings, they are being wrongly
dispossessed.
05. In M.P. No.712/2023, the petitioner has raised the objections under
Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. and also filed the separate civil suit claiming that
they purchased the part of the suit land from the ancestor of Aditya Chitnis,
therefore, they are the absolute owners of the houses in question, hence decree
under execution is not binding on them.
06. In view of the report submitted by the process server/Nazir it is
apparent that the suit land is not a vacant land, there are as many as 150 houses
are constructed on the land, but the said report is incomplete and it is nowhere
reflects that how much area of the land is vacant and on how much land the
houses are constructed. The Executing Court is directed to obtain the spot-
inspection report from the Revenue Officers to ascertain as to how much area
of the suit land is vacant. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submit that for vacant land the petitioners have no claim and they have no
objection is the same is handed over to the plaintiff, but so far as houses are
concerned, the issue is liable to be decided whether the houses are constructed
on the land of the plaintiff and the objectors have valid title over their houses.
Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to be dispossession from their houses in
which they are living since last more than a decade till their applications filed
under Order 21 Rule 97 to 100 of the CPC are decided. After receipt of the
report from the Revenue Officers, the learned Executing Court shall pass a
fresh order for handing over the vacant part of the suit land to the
plaintiff/decree-holder. For the other part of the land for which objections are
pending, same be decided as per law
07. With the aforesaid limited relief, these petitions are disposed of. Let a
photocopy of this order be retained in the file of each connected petition.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Alok
Date: 2024.02.22 18:30:47 +05'30'
