Allahabad High Court
HAZI MEHARBAN AND 11 OTHERSversusSATYA NARAYAN AND 15 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Executing Court must ensure delivery of possession only over the correctly identified 4,000 square yards of the disputed land, and the civil revisions are dismissed.
Summary
The revisionists challenged orders of the Executing Court that allowed the decree‑holder to take possession of agricultural land without clear identification of its boundaries. The dispute arose from a specific‑performance suit where the original agreement mentioned 5,050 square yards, but the Second Appellate Court reduced the subject area to 4,000 square yards based on a commissioner’s report. The revisionists argued that the Executing Court had not properly demarcated the parcels (Khasra Nos. 801 and 797) and that execution over the entire Khasra area would be unlawful. The respondents contended that the Executing Court correctly incorporated the reduced area and that the Gata numbers sufficiently identified the land. The High Court held that proper identification and demarcation of the 4,000‑square‑yard portion are essential to avoid future disputes and directed the Executing Court to limit possession accordingly. Consequently, both civil revisions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The decree‑holder may be granted possession of land without precise boundary identification.
- Whether the Executing Court erred in accepting the decree‑holder’s claim over the entire Khasra parcels despite the reduced area determined by the Second Appellate Court.
Subjects
- specific performance
- execution of decree
- land identification
- boundary demarcation
- agricultural land
- civil revision
- possession
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL REVISION No. - 18 of 2024
Hazi Meharban and 11 others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Satya Narayan and 15 others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Along with :
1. Civil Revision No. 130 of 2023:
Hazi Meharban (Since Deceased) and 11 others
Versus
Satya Narayan ( Since Deceased) and 17 others
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Himanshu Srivastava, Siddhartha
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Akash Kumar
Verma, Devid Kumar Singh, Gaurav
Kumar Srivastava, Kamal Kishor Mishra,
Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt, Satya Prakash
Rai, Tabrez Ahmad
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R.C. Singh,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Gaurav Kumar Srivastava and Shri Kamal
Kishore Mishra learned counsel for respondent/ opposite party.
2. These two civil revisions have been preferred against the orders dated
06.11.2023 and 23.8.2023 passed by the learned Executing Court in
Execution Case No. 3 of 2012 (Satya Narayan Vs. Rifaqat and Others).
3. By means of the impugned order, the learned Executing Court has
allowed the application filed by the decree-holder seeking delivery of
possession over the decreed land and has dismissed the objection filed by the
revisionist/judgment-debtor.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/judgment-debtor submitted that the
suit for specific performance of the contract/agreement to sell filed by the
respondent was initially dismissed. The said decree was challenged in a first
CLRE No. 18 of 2024
2
appeal, and the appeal was thereafter allowed in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. The said judgment passed by the first appellate court
was then challenged before this Court by means of a second appeal.
Although the second appeal was dismissed, certain substantial issues
pertaining to the area of the land were decided therein. It was submitted
that, from the very beginning, neither the exact extent nor the boundaries of
the disputed land, in respect of which the suit for specific performance had
been instituted, were disclosed. For the first time, the area of the disputed
land, along with a map describing its boundaries, was filed before the
Executing Court. The same was also challenged, and it was held by this
Court in Second Appeal No. 938 of 2012 that, although a total area of 5,050
square yards had been referred to in the agreement to sell, the said area was
to be read and considered as 4,000 square yards. It was submitted that the
said area of 4,000 square yards was determined by the Second Appellate
Court on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner. Learned
counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, although the area of the
disputed land was reduced by the Second Appellate Court, the identification
thereof still remains disputed, as its boundaries have not been properly
specified in the draft prepared before the Executing Court. Similarly, the
map of the decreed property, namely, Khata No. 174 comprising Khasra
Nos. 801 and Khata No.150 comprising of Khasra No.797, has not been
properly identified. Apart from the same, the decree-holder has annexed a
map of the decreed property, i.e., Khata No. 174 and Khata No.150 (Khasra
Nos. 801 and 797), along with the draft sale deed. The said map annexed to
the draft sale deed would form part of the deed once the same is executed
pursuant to the directions of the Executing Court.
5. It was further submitted that execution of the sale deed without properly
disclosing the actual boundaries of Khasra Nos. 801 and 797 would lead to
further litigation and cause disputes between the parties for various reasons.
Firstly, the area initially claimed in the plaint has been reduced, and the total
area which is now the subject matter of execution is only 4,000 square yards,
the boundaries whereof have not been properly disclosed. The decree-holder,
under the guise of the order passed by the Executing Court, may take
possession over the entire area comprised in Khasra Nos. 801 and 797, even
though he is not entitled to do so. Therefore, the impugned order passed by
the learned Executing Court is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder submitted
that the learned Executing Court has committed no error in the findings
recorded by it. The area reduced by the Second Appellate Court has been
duly taken into consideration, and the draft sale deed submitted before the
CLRE No. 18 of 2024
3
Executing Court also mentions the same area. A map of the property
proposed to be included in the sale deed has also been annexed, which
further specifies its boundaries. It was submitted that it is incorrect to argue
on behalf of the revisionist that the decree-holder/plaintiff has not furnished
the identification of the disputed property, except at the initial stage of the
proceedings, i.e., at the time of institution of the suit. It was submitted that,
since the suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell, there was
no occasion for the plaintiff to separately disclose the boundaries of the
property. Moreover, the property sought to be transferred in execution is
agricultural land, which has been identified by its Gata numbers, and hence
there is no impediment in execution of the decree.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order
passed by the learned Executing Court.
8. From the facts and submissions advanced by both the parties, this Court
is of the view that the property, whether forming the subject matter of the
suit or the execution proceedings, must be properly identified; otherwise, the
same may give rise to further disputes. It is apparent that the subject matter
of the suit comprises two parcels of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.
801 and 797. Therefore, the Executing Court shall ensure that the decree-
holder is delivered possession only over an area of 4,000 square yards out of
the total area comprised in Khasra Nos. 801 and 797, after properly
identifying and demarcating the boundaries of the said area.
9. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or on
the correctness of the impugned order. However, the aforesaid observation is
being made by way of guidance to the Executing Court, which shall ensure
that, at the time of satisfaction of the decree, the execution proceedings
conform to the observations made hereinabove.
10. Accordingly, both the civil revisions are dismissed.
September 29, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…