A decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and unenforceable, and possession of acquired land cannot be legally protected.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2017 passed in E.P.No.106 of 2011 in O.S.No.138 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.)

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court directing arrest of the judgement debtors on the ground of violation of permanent injunction decree.

Factual Background:

2. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.138 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur as against the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the relief of permanent injunction as against them that they should not disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants namely the officials of the Housing Board were set exparte and an exparte decree came to be passed on 28.06.2002.

3. The defendants therein had filed I.A.No.187 of 2004 to condone the delay of 615 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. The said application was dismissed on 13.02.2006. Challenging the same, the defendants are said to have filed a revision before the High Court which has not been numbered.

4. The plaintiff/decree holder had filed E.P.No.106 of 2011 for executing the said decree under Order 21 Rule 32 of C.P.C as against the defendant officials on the ground that they have disturbed the possession of the plaintiff.

5. A counter was filed by the defendants contending that the said decree has been passed only as against two individuals who were holding the post of Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer at the relevant point of time and they are no more in service. Therefore, the said decree cannot be executed as against the present officials. There is no decree as against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and therefore, the land having vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the decree cannot be executed as against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

6. The Executing Court relied upon Exhibit P3 which is an advertisement board put up by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Exhibit P4 letter written by the officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 01.12.2008 to the Sub Registrar, Karur and Thanthonimalai Municipality, arrived at a finding that the officials have addressed these letters to stop registration of property and not to give electricity service connection to the property which is the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the defendants have violated the injunction decree granted by the Court. The Executing Court further found that the defendants have violated the injunction decree and passed an order directing the police authorities to arrest the judgement debtors and produce them before the Court on 22.03.2017. Challenging the said order of arrest, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendants/ officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Contentions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners:

7. The property having an extent of 3.50 acres in S.No.1407 in Senappiratti Village in Karur Taluk originally belonged to one Vellayappa Gounder. He had passed away leaving behind his wife Kamatchi and 5 children. The said land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act 1894 by way of 4(1) Notification dated 04.11.1982 published on 24.11.1982. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published on 19.11.1984 and an award was passed on 10.06.1987. The Government has handed over the possession of the said property to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 06.01.1998.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners had further contended that original owner namely Vellayappa Gounder had filed a writ petition challenging the said acquisition proceedings in W.P. Nos. 2074 and 2075 of 1988 were dismissed. An appeal was filed in W.A.Nos. 1499 and 1500 of 1998 challenging the order of the writ Court. The writ appeals were dismissed by the Hon''ble First Bench granting liberty to the appellants to make a