Charan Singh & Ors. v. Vimla Devi & Ors.

Nagar, whereby the respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs want to execute the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025, passed by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bajpur, Udham Singh Nagar in Revenue Suit No.22/15 of 2015-16, Smt. Vimla Devi and others Vs. Charan Singh and others.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that a revenue suit was filed by the respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiff against the petitioners- defendants in the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar under Section 229-B r/w Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1901.

Admittedly the suit was decreed by reason of the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 and the petitioners-defendants were directed to vacate and handover the property to the respondent nos.1 to 3- 1 plaintiffs.

Instead of putting this judgment and decree into execution, as per law, as provided under Section 209 of U.P.L.R. Act, 1901 r/w Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, impugned notice has been issued by respondent no.9 –Tehsildar, whereby the petitioners-defendants were threatened to vacate the suit property. It is feeling aggrieved the petitioners-defendants are before this Court.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners- defendants that such a practice cannot be adopted; instead the respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs should have put the decree into execution, in accordance with law. The notice impugned in the present writ petition is totally without jurisdiction, illegal and deserves to be set aside by this Court.

It is informed by counsel for the petitioners- defendants that the said decree against them was challenged by the petitioners-defendants by filing a Z.A. Appeal No.138 of 2024-25, Charan Singh and others Vs. Vimla Devi and others, the court of learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, which is still pending.

In the said first appeal the stay application moved by the petitioners-defendants for stay of the judgment and decree was rejected and a revision petition is also pending disposal before the Board of Revenue against rejection of the stay application.

It appears that encouraged by the fact that there is no stay order against the judgment and decree dated

30.08.2025, respondent no.9 – Tehsildar issued a notice which is abruptly against law.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiff submits that perhaps the notice impugned in the present writ petition has been issued by the respondent 2 no.9 – Tehsildar after reading the operative portion of the aforesaid judgment and decree and even the respondent nos.1 and 3-plaintiffs are not instrumental in that.

Be that as it may. There is a procedure prescribed for execution of the decree passed by the Revenue Court under Section 209 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, r/w Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which says that the decree of the Revenue Court shall be executable, as per law, as a decree passed by the Civil Court. Notice impugned in the present writ petition appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.

However it is need not mention that that the respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiff is always at liberty to put the decree in execution as per law.

The Board of Revenue is directed to expedite hearing and disposal of the Revenue Suit No.22/15 of 2015-16, Smt. Vimla Devi and others Vs. Charan Singh and others, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.11.2025 3