Back
The of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that a decree affirmed up to the cannot be reopened in on a , dismissing three petitions filed by the and allowing the landowners' connected petitions in a decades-old Hamirpur property dispute.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai, deciding the batch under
on
, held that the State had contested the suits and appeals at every stage and could not now call the verdicts
.
"The judgements from
to
further demonstrate that at every stage, State was given opportunity through Counsel/special Counsel to argue the matter, as such, it cannot be said that the judgement was passed on the basis of
between the plaintiff of the suit and State authorities,"
the Court observed.
A decree that survived every forum
The case arises from plots in Mohal Madan Mohan and Mohal Lala Ram Swaroop in Village Meerapur Danda, Hamirpur, recorded in the name of the Singhal family's predecessors as zamindars of Kothi Narayan Rao. The plots, adjoining the Collector's bungalow, had been let out to the State for construction. In revenue records, the State was shown in occupancy tenancy as "Sarkar" while the predecessors remained recorded as zamindars and landlords.
After the area came within municipal limits and was declared non-agricultural, no compensation roll was prepared for the disputed plots. In 1972, Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and Jagdish Saran Singhal filed and respectively, seeking of the State, and . The State filed written statements verified by the then Collector and raised to the and of the suits. The rejected those objections on ; revisions by the State were dismissed by the on , and this Court dismissed further revisions on .
The suits were decreed on . The State's first appeals were dismissed on , and its second appeals were dismissed on , the holding that the land could not be treated as agricultural and that the suits had been rightly decreed. Civil appeals arising from the granted special leave petitions were later dismissed by the , finally affirming the decree.
In the meantime, the Collector had moved the Sub Divisional Officer to change the revenue entry of the disputed plots from "non-agricultural" to "agricultural", and an order was passed on . A quashed that order on , holding that it was illegal, without jurisdiction and passed in bad faith; the State's against that judgment was also dismissed. A in the case resulted in the then Collector, Sri S.P. Gaur, being found guilty of .
The State then filed two suits in 1993 seeking cancellation of the 1977 decree and other reliefs. The landowners moved applications under , and the plaints were ultimately rejected by this Court in revisions decided on , with recall applications dismissed on . The dismissed the State's special leave petitions against those orders on .
No room for a fresh fraud plea in execution
Thereafter, execution proceeded. The passed orders on and , including attachment of the car of the District Magistrate and Collector, Hamirpur, and official furniture. The State challenged those orders by revisions and also filed an application in , which had been filed by Jagdish Saran Singhal for damages for illegal possession. That application, registered as , was rejected on . The State's revisional challenge was allowed on , prompting the landowners' petitions before the . The State's separate petitions challenged the execution orders and the revisional orders dated .
Before the , the landowners contended that the fraud question had been decided against the State and confirmed up to the and could not be raised repeatedly. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the had wrongly refused supplementary objections under , and that the revisional court had bypassed a binding order dated 23.2.2009. It also invoked , contending that could be used to show that the decree was a obtained by and involving sovereign Nazul land.
The Court rejected those submissions on the facts. It noted that the State had contested the original suits, filed written statements, participated in the framing of issues, and led evidence. The
dismissed the second appeals on merits, and the
had dismissed the appeals against the decree. It found no illegality in the
's exercise of jurisdiction and held that the decrees in the two suits and the judgment in the
, all maintained up to the
,
"are not
and have
"
.
On the State's execution challenges, the Court added:
"There is no illegality in the impugned orders passed in the pending execution proceeding as the judgement and decree passed in the original suit has been affirmed up to
, as such, raising the objection in the execution proceeding that decree passed by
which has been affirmed up to
is the result of
between the plaintiff and State authorities cannot be accepted in any manner."
Directions for expeditious disposal
The Court set aside the revisional order dated and allowed the landowners' petitions in and No. 12515 of 2023. It directed that , the damages suit, be decided expeditiously, preferably within four months.
It dismissed the State's petitions in Matters Under Article 227 No. 12516, No. 12517 and No. 12518 of 2023. The was directed to decide the pending arising from and expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. No order was made as to costs.
