Smt. Shobha Dixit vs Party(s)

1. Heard Sri J.P.Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-revisionist. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent though the name of Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate has been shown as counsel respondent. In this view of the matter, the Court has proceeded to hear the revisionist in absence of the respondent.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Lucknow in Misc Case No.9- C of 2011 whereby objections preferred by the revisionist purportedly under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure have been rejected.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that initially the original tenure holder i.e. the private respondent was granted an award at Rs.2.50 sq ft.

4. Since the private respondent was not satisfied with the amount granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, hence she preferred a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1897 wherein the amount was enhanced to Rs.15/- sq ft. The said award was assailed by the revisionist by filing a time barred appeal before the High Court vide Defective First Appeal No.144 of 2007 2 CLRE No. 117 of 2017 which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay on

16.02.2012. Thereafter the revisionist filed a review petition which also came to be dismissed on 12.01.2017. The revisionist thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide SLP No.15789-15790 of 2022. The said SLPs were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on

09.09.2022.

5. In the meantime, while the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer which was enhanced in reference was put to execution which came to be registered as Execution Case No.1 of 2001, the revisionist preferred objections under Section 47 CPC. A copy of the said objections have been brought on record as annexure-9 with this revision.

6. It is the case of the revisionist that the decree was not executable and it was barred by time. The decree holder is not the juristic person, hence the decree being a nullity could not have been executed. It was also sought to be urged that as the land acquired related to lease plots no.71 and 72 and since the lease had already expired in 1975, hence no right could have accrued in favour of the private respondent, hence, no compensation could have been paid. It was also urged that since the respondent has a registered agreement to sale, hence the compensation could not have been paid to the respondent. As there was a dispute and unless the same was resolved in terms of Section 30 of the Act, 1897, the decree could not be executed and for all the aforesaid reasons, the objections were bound to be allowed, however, the executing court did not appropriately consider the said objections and by means of the impugned order dated 01.4.2017 rejected the said objections, which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material on record, at the outset, it will be relevant to notice that the scope of proceedings under Section 47 CPC is limited. All issues which otherwise could have been raised while proceedings were pending on the regular side, cannot be made a 3 CLRE No. 117 of 2017 ground for objections under Section 47 CPC. Unless and until it can be proved or substantiated by cogent material on record that there is a jurisdictional error committed or the jurisdictional error is regarding the authority of the court to pass the order till then any objections which are based on factual matrix cannot be entertained nor does it fall within the domain of Section 47 CPC.

8. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind including the fact that the executing court cannot go behind the decree, in such circumstances, if the submission and ground raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is examined, it would reveal that all the grounds raised are based on facts which were available and could have been taken when the proceedings were pending before the reference court. Any plea whether raised or even not raised but could have been raised, such issues cannot be made subject matter of challenge indirectly through objections under Section 47 CPC.

9. It could not be pointed out by learned counsel for the revisionist as to which law bars the execution of the decree. Since it was the prime ground upon which objections under Section 47 CPC were filed, but could not be explained. It also could not be demonstrated by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to the second ground regarding the respondent not being a juristic person. It appears that the aforesaid grounds have been incorporated merely to make the petition fancy without actually having any can to do with the crux of the controversy involved in the reference or facts of the case.

10. It is also relevant to notice that admittedly the order passed by the reference court was challenged in appeal before the High Court which came to be dismissed and a further challenge before the High Court by filing a review and subsequent endevour to assail the said order before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also rejected.

11. The findings on the merits of the order passed by the reference court have thus attained finality, and the same cannot be indirectly 4 CLRE No. 117 of 2017 challenged by means of objections under Section 47 CPC, nor is it within the domain or scope of the executing court to do so. The executing court taking note of the aforesaid facts has passed the impugned order dated 01.04.2017 which could not be shown to suffer from any jurisdictional error which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid revision.

12. A feeble attempt was made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to state that since the respondent had an agreement to sale, hence the decree became in executable is also legally misconceived inasmuch as no rights are created on the basis of an agreement of sale by which the revisionist can be said to be prejudiced. Moreover, any dispute between the lessee or the person in whose favour the alleged agreement to sale has been executed, is inter se the said individual and it has got nothing to do with the revisionist-State, who is required to pay the compensation to the person concerned. No dispute has come forward to indicate that the original lessee or the person in whose favour the alleged agreement to sale has been executed, ever attempted to stall the proceedings.

13. In absence of any such endevaour, the ground taken by the State to challenge execution of the decree of reference, is per se bad and cannot be countenanced in law.

14. The Court is satisfied the order impugned dated

01.04.2017 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid revision, which is legally misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.

15. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. December 9, 2025 Renu/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri J.P.Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-revisionist. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent though the name of Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate has been shown as counsel respondent. In this view of the matter, the Court has proceeded to hear the revisionist in absence of the respondent.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Lucknow in Misc Case No.9- C of 2011 whereby objections preferred by the revisionist purportedly under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure have been rejected.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that initially the original tenure holder i.e. the private respondent was granted an award at Rs.2.50 sq ft.

4. Since the private respondent was not satisfied with the amount granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, hence she preferred a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1897 wherein the amount was enhanced to Rs.15/- sq ft. The said award was assailed by the revisionist by filing a time barred appeal before the High Court vide Defective First Appeal No.144 of 2007 2 CLRE No. 117 of 2017 which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay on

16.02.2012. Thereafter the revisionist filed a review petition which also came to be dismissed on 12.01.2017. The revisionist thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide SLP No.15789-15790 of 2022. The said SLPs were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on

09.09.2022.

5. In the meantime, while the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer which was enhanced in reference was put to execution which came to be registered as Execution Case No.1 of 2001, the revisionist preferred objections under Section 47 CPC. A copy of the said objections have been brought on record as annexure-9 with this revision.

6. It is the case of the revisionist that the decree was not executable and it was barred by time. The decree holder is not the juristic person, hence the decree being a nullity could not have been executed. It was also sought to be urged that as the land acquired related to lease plots no.71 and 72 and since the lease had already expired in 1975, hence no right could have accrued in favour of the private respondent, hence, no compensation could have been paid. It was also urged that since the respondent has a registered agreement to sale, hence the compensation could not have been paid to the respondent. As there was a dispute and unless the same was resolved in terms of Section 30 of the Act, 1897, the decree could not be executed and for all the aforesaid reasons, the objections were bound to be allowed, however, the executing court did not appropriately consider the said objections and by means of the impugned order dated 01.4.2017 rejected the said objections, which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material on record, at the outset, it will be relevant to notice that the scope of proceedings under Section 47 CPC is limited. All issues which otherwise could have been raised while proceedings were pending on the regular side, cannot be made a 3 CLRE No. 117 of 2017 ground for objections under Section 47 CPC. Unless and until it can be proved or substantiated by cogent material on record that there is a jurisdictional error committed or the jurisdictional error is regarding the authority of the court to pass the order till then any objections which are based on factual matrix cannot be entertained nor does it fall within the domain of Section 47 CPC.

8. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind including the fact that the executing court cannot go behind the decree, in such circumstances, if the submission and ground raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is examined, it would reveal that all the grounds raised are based on facts which were available and could have been taken when the proceedings were pending before the reference court. Any plea whether raised or even not raised but could have been raised, such issues cannot be made subject matter of challenge indirectly through objections under Section 47 CPC.

9. It could not be pointed out by learned counsel for the revisionist as to which law bars the execution of the decree. Since it was the prime ground upon which objections under Section 47 CPC were filed, but could not be explained. It also could not be demonstrated by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to the second ground regarding the respondent not being a juristic person. It appears that the aforesaid grounds have been incorporated merely to make the petition fancy without actually having any can to do with the crux of the controversy involved in the reference or facts of the case.

10. It is also relevant to notice that admittedly the order passed by the reference court was challenged in appeal before the High Court which came to be dismissed and a further challenge before the High Court by filing a review and subsequent endevour to assail the said order before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also rejected.

11. The findings on the merits of the order passed by the reference court have thus attained finality, and the same cannot be indirectly 4 CLRE No. 117 of 2017 challenged by means of objections under Section 47 CPC, nor is it within the domain or scope of the executing court to do so. The executing court taking note of the aforesaid facts has passed the impugned order dated 01.04.2017 which could not be shown to suffer from any jurisdictional error which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid revision.

12. A feeble attempt was made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to state that since the respondent had an agreement to sale, hence the decree became in executable is also legally misconceived inasmuch as no rights are created on the basis of an agreement of sale by which the revisionist can be said to be prejudiced. Moreover, any dispute between the lessee or the person in whose favour the alleged agreement to sale has been executed, is inter se the said individual and it has got nothing to do with the revisionist-State, who is required to pay the compensation to the person concerned. No dispute has come forward to indicate that the original lessee or the person in whose favour the alleged agreement to sale has been executed, ever attempted to stall the proceedings.

13. In absence of any such endevaour, the ground taken by the State to challenge execution of the decree of reference, is per se bad and cannot be countenanced in law.

14. The Court is satisfied the order impugned dated

01.04.2017 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid revision, which is legally misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.

15. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. December 9, 2025 Renu/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench