Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asad Jilani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11125
1 MP-2571-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2571 of 2025
ASAD JILANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Brij Mohan Patel- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is a decree holder in the execution proceedings
initiated in respect of the award dated 29/01/2024 passed by the District
Judge, Lateri, District- Vidisha (M.P.) in MJC No.10/2019, whereby in
exercise of the power under Section 58 of the Land Acquisition Act, learned
Trial Court has enhanced the compensation amount.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the execution
proceedings were initiated on 26/04/2024, no effective step is being taken by
the Executing Court for recovery of the amount. He referred to the various
order sheets of the execution proceedings particularly the order sheet dated
25/11/2024 wherein the petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 30 of
CPC was not accepted on assurance of the judgment debtor that they are
making correspondence for payment of amount of compensation. The case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11125
2 MP-2571-2025
was adjourned on 12/12/2024, 23/12/2024, 13/01/2025, 17/01/2025,
11/02/2025, 14/02/2025, 07/03/2025, 22/03/2025 and 24/03/2025 granting
time to the judgment debtor for the same purpose. Again on 25/03/2025 a
detailed order sheet is written by the Executing Court directing the judgment
debtors to deposit the entire amount of compensation. Case was fixed for
09/05/2025, however, again on 09/05/2025, the case is adjourned.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar
Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 has held in para 42.12 that the
Executing Court must disposed off the execution proceedings within a period
of six months from the date of filing which may extended only by recording
reason inviting for such delay. Taking note of the aforesaid direction issued
by the Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah (supra), recently the Apex
Court in the case of Periyammal (Dead Thr. LRs.) & Ors. Vs. Rajamani and
Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No.3640-3642 of 2025 has passed following
directions:-
"We direct all the High Courts across the country to call
for the necessary information from their respective
district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution
petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High
Courts, the High Courts shall reafter proceed to issue an
administrative order or circular, directing their
respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution
petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and
disposed of within a period of six months without fail
otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be
answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.
Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency
and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High
Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of
this Court with individual reports."
4. In view of the specific direction issued, the execution proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11125
3 MP-2571-2025
are required to be concluded within a period of six months which can be
extended only for cogent reason to be recorded by the Executing Court.
5. Considering the aforesaid, it is found that the execution proceedings
are being adjourned without any cogent reason, therefore, the Executing
Court is directed to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously as per
the direction issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case.
6. Needless to mention that if there is any impediment in execution of
the award viz. any interim order is passed by higher Court, the Executing
Court is obliged to record such reason in the order sheet.
7. With the aforesaid, this miscellaneous petition is disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
