IMPORTANT POINT
Validity of a decree can be challenged before an executing court only on the ground of an inherent lack of jurisdiction rendering the decree a nullity.

JUDGMENT :

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, by a judgment dated 19 September 2014 rejected a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition sought to challenge an order dated 21 August 2010 of the Additional District Judge (North) rejecting the objections of the appellant in the course of the execution of a decree.

3. Sometime in 2002 a suit was instituted by the respondents for a permanent injunction, alleging that the defendants to the suit were threatening to interfere with the possession of their lands situated at Nilothi, Delhi. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 14 February 2005, holding it to be barred by the provisions of Section 185 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The Trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to place any registered document on record to establish his ownership in respect of the land. Moreover, in the view of the trial Court, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to first seek a declaration from the revenue court as bhoomidars upon which alone an injunction could be sought. Subsequently, on 31 December 2005 the respondents instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the appellant, alleging that the appellant had forcibly taken possession of the land. In response it was the case of the appellant that he was neither in possession of the land nor had he dispossessed the respondents. The suit was decreed by the trial court ex-parte on 30 May 2009, upon which execution was initiated by the respondents as decree-holders. In the course of the execution, the appellant filed objections on the ground that he was not concerned with the suit property and was not in possession and on the ground that the ex-parte decree was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. The objections were dismissed in default on 16 April 2010 and a warrant of possession was directed to be issued by the ADJ (North)-04, Delhi. The appellant appears to have filed objections to the execution of the decree on 12 July 2010 on the ground that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act bars a civil suit for the recovery of possession. The objections were dismissed by the executing Court on 21 August 2010 with the following observations:

“The Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable with regard to the agricultural land only but the land in question is not agriculture land which has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the DH and in support of her contention placed on record the copies of the electricity bills pertaining to the same khasra number which is subject matter of the instant execution proceedings. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common knowledge that most of the rural land in Delhi has become urbanized and private colonies, may be unauthorized, have mushroomed on such agricultural land. This fact has since been substantiated with the help of electricity bills which takes out the sting from the contentions raised by the counsel for the objector and in the process strengthens the case of the DH, the arguments is thus, brushed aside that the court lack of inherent jurisdiction on account of the fact that land in question is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act being agriculture land.”

The order of the executing court was challenged by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition by its judgment dated 19 September 2014. The High Court rejected the submission that the decree obtained under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was a nullity on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

4. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that since an earlier suit seeking a permanent injunction was dismissed by a competent civil court in view of the provisions of Section 185(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, and since the land is ‘agricultural’ in nature, the civil court did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The decree was a nulli