The main legal point established in the judgment is that the illegal occupation of land and construction of a canal without acquisition or compensation constitutes a breach of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, leading to the dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs and the liberty granted to the State Government to recover the costs from the responsible officers.

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri S. Shekhar, learned standing counsel for the petitioners judgment debtors.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that according to the respondent decree holder, his Sankramaniya Bhoomidhari land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis being khasra plot Nos.32, 33 and 2/851 situate in village Korath, Tehsil Bah, District, Agra was occupied and a canal under "Chambal Dal Pariyojna" was constructed over it. The aforesaid scheme was notified in the year 1987. Since the petitioners judgment debtors illegally, unauthorisedly and unconstitutionally occupied the land of the respondent decree holder and constructed a canal over it, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff-decree holder started agitating. He approached the authorities several times but nothing was done. Ultimately, he filed O.S. No. 553 of 1997, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 27.03.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Agra. Issue No. 1 was framed to the effect as to whether land of the respondent decree holder measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis of khasra plot Nos. 32, 33 and 2/851, has been taken by the petitioners judgment debtors in construction of canal This issue was decided in affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent decree holder and against the petitioners judgment debtors. Other issues were also decided by the trial court in favour of the respondent decree holder. The operative portion of the judgment dated 27.03.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No. 5, Agra, in O.S. No. 553 of 1997, is reproduced below:

^^vkns'k

oknh dk okn Áfroknhx.k ds fy, vkaf'kd :i ls okLrs vkns'kkRed O;kns'k bl vk'k; ls vkKIr fd;k tkrk gS fd Áfr oknhx.k oknh dh pEcy Mky ifj;kstuk ds rgr ugj fuekZ.k esa yh xbZ 1&10&5 Hkwfe ds laca/k esa Hkw&vtZu vf/kdkjh ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj mDr Hkwfe dk eqvkotk oknh dks fu;ekuqlkj fu.kZ; dh fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj vnk djuk lqfuf'pr djsa vU;Fkk oknh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd og fu;ekuqlkj mDr eqvkotk dh /kujkf'k U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls Áfroknhx.k ls ÁkIr dj ysA

ekeys ds rF; ,ao ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vk;k okn O;; viuk viuk Lo;a ogu djsaxsA

fnukad & 27-03-2010

lqUnjyky

vij flfoy tt ¼lhŒfMŒ½

d{k la[;k&5] vkxjk

fu.kZ; vkt esjs }kjk [kqys U;k;ky; esa fnukafdr ,oa gLrk{kfjr djds lquk;k x;kA

fnukad % 27-03-2010

lqUnjyky

vij flfoy tt ¼lhŒfMŒ½

d{k la[;k&5] vkxjkA**

3. The suit was decreed in respect of total area measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas 5 biswansis. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the petitioners judgment debtors filed a Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011, State of U.P. and Others vs. Bheem Singh, which was decided by judgment dated 22.04.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Agra. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below:

^^vkns'k

vkyksP; fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k fnukafdr 27-03-2010 vkaf'kd :i ls la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vihykFkhZx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls rhu ekg ds vanj ÁR;qRrjnkrk@oknh dh xkVk la[;k 32] 33 o 02@851 fLFkr xzke dksjFk] rglhy ckg] ftyk vkxjk dh ugj gsrq Á;ksx dh x;h Hkwfe dk oknh@ÁR;qRrjnkrk iqjkus Lo:i esa dCtk Ánku djsa vU;Fkk ÁR;qRrjnkrk@oknh U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls Hkwfe dk dCtk ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA

Ádj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k mijksDr rhu ekg dh vof/k esa oknxzLr lEifRRk dks Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vf/kxzg.k dh dk;Zokgh ;fn iw.kZ djuk pkgs rks dj ldrs gSA rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA mHk;i{k viuk&viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA

fnukad&22-04-2013

¼vk'kh"k xxZ½

vij ftyk tt

dksVZ uaŒ&5] vkxjk

vkt ;g fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kfjr o fnukafdr dj mn?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

¼vk'kh”k xxZ½

vij ftyk tt

dksVZ uaŒ&5] vkxjkA**

4. The petitioners judgment debtors accepted the aforesaid judgment passed by the appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2011. But they took no action to comply with the judgment within the time allowed by the appellate court. Consequently, the respondent decree holder started pursuing