High Court · 2025

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Sudhir Kum ar Nailwal, St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t ar akhand/ pet it ioner s. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocat e assist ed by Mr. Dev esh Kandpal, Advocat e, holding brief of Mr. Chit rart h Kandpal, Advocat e for t he r espondent . Respondent filed a suit for m andat ory 2. inj unct ion against St at e of Ut t arakhand, t hrough Secr et ary Forest and ot her aut horit ies of St at e Forest and Rev enue depart m ent . The suit was decreed vide j udgm ent dat ed 30.01.2020 and defendant s t o t he suit w er e t he pending direct ed t ake decision on represent at ions/ applicat ions Mem bers of t he plaint iff’s associat ion for t heir rehabilit at ion/ reset t lem ent , possible. subm it t ed t o holder rej ect ed for execut ing Plaint iff/ decree 3. t he decree. The applicat ion Execut ing Court t he execut ion applicat ion by holding it inexecut able, vide order dat ed 11.07.2022. Pet it ioner challenged Execut ing Court ’s order dat ed 11.07.2022 in a revision pet it ion, which was allowed by learned Judge, Kashipur , Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar vide order dat ed 14.02.2023 and t he m at t er was rem anded back t o t he Execut ing Court wit h t he decree execut ed. t he dir ect ion j udgm ent debt ors Defendant s have approached t his Court challenging t he revisional court ’s j udgm ent dat ed 14.02.2023. Addit ional Dist rict t he suit / t o get 2 nd t o

4. Lear ned St anding Counsel appearing for t he pet it ioner subm it s j udgm ent rendered by lear ned t rial court is absolut ely r epr esent at ions/ silent applicat ions, m ade by plaint iff, w hich are y et r egarding t hat t he t he subm ission t o be decided. He furt her subm it s t hat t he repr esent at ions dat e t he / applicat ions, St at e concer ned t rial Governm ent court ’s learned Execut ing Court was j ust ified in holding t he decree passed by t rial court is inexecut able. t he plaint iff, t he indicat ed depart m ent is also not j udgm ent , t her efore, considerat ion

5. Lear ned St at e counsel subm it s t hat t rial court had direct ed t he aut horit ies t o t ake represent at ions, w hich w er e decision on learned pending t he Revisional Court erred Execut ing Court t o get t he decr ee ex ecut ed, qua a r epresent at ion, which was allegedly m ade by plaint iff/ decree holder aft er passing of j udgm ent by t rial Court . t he in dir ect ing t o a is m ade He furt her subm it s t hat in para 8 of t he 6. order passed by t he Execut ing Court , which was put t o challenge by t he decree holder, let t er dat ed reference 10.05.2022, issued by Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar, w hich show s t hat t he represent at ions m ade by plaint iff for handing over forest land was decided by Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Cent ral Forest Division, Rudrapur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dat ed 25.02.2022. Thus he subm it s t hat it is incorrect t o say t hat any repr esent at ion, which was m ade by plaint iff, befor e decision in t he suit is y et t o be decided.

7. I n para 9 of t he or der dat ed 11.07.2022, learned Ex ecut ing Court has held t hat t rial court ’s t he represent at ions m ade by t he plaint iff, which have not been decided, t herefor e, Execut ing Court held t hat t he decr ee is inexecut able. is silent as r egards j udgm ent

8. Lear ned Revisional Court has r ev ersed t he order passed by Execut ing Court on t he ground t hat one represent at ion, which was subm it t ed St at e plaint iff Governm ent on 19.02.2020, has not been consider ed and decided. t he t o

9. This Court finds force in t he cont ent ion raised on behalf of pet it ioners t hat learned for decision on t rial Court had direct ed pending represent at ion subm it t ed by plaint iff/ decree holder , aft er 30.01.2020, i.e. t he dat e w hen t he suit was decided. r epresent at ions dat ed

19.02.2020 t he t hat t here t hrough I have gone j udgem ent 10. rendered by lear ned t rial Court . There is no reference t o t he represent at ions/ applicat ions subm it t ed by plaint iff befor e St at e aut horit ies, which w ere pending considerat ion. The st and t aken by St at e/ pet it ioners before Execut ing Court represent at ion/ applicat ion m ade by plaint iff is pending befor e any aut horit y, t her efore, it was incum bent upon t he decree holder t o subst ant iat e allegat ion of non- com pliance of dir ect ions, issued by t rial court by producing represent at ions wit h proof of service t hereof upon St at e aut horit ies. Since t her e was no m at erial available on recor d t o show t hat any r epresent at ion m ade by decree holder befor e passing of t he j udgm ent and decree is y et t o be decided, t herefore, learned Execut ing Court w as right in holding t hat t he t he decree cont rary , t aken by learned Revisional Court , t her efore, is unsust ainable. inex ecut able. The view t o

14.02.2023,

11. I n such view of t he m at t er, j udgm ent dat ed learned Revisional Court in Civil Revision No. 23 of 2022 is liable t o be set aside and is her eby set aside. passed

12. Accordingly, t he w rit pet it ion is allowed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

17.02.2025 Arpan