- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 28 May 2013
- Bench
- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjeev Sachdeva
- Case no.
- EFA(OS) 11/2013
Follow Delhi High CourtFollow Sanjay Kishan KaulFollow Sanjeev Sachdeva
Judgment
ORDER
28.05.2013 CM No.8802/2013 Allowedsubjecttojustexceptions. IwS NOS,8801^^01. fennHnn.>,." "
¶1The appellanthas filed the presentappealimpugningthe orderdated
08.02.2003 dismissing his review petition and order dated17.II.2012 wherebythe Court has directedissuanceofwarrantsofpossessionof land shown mAm,exure-DH.lto Execution ApplicationNo.538 of 2011 in respectof 8.48 acres of land which was stated to be in possessionofthe JudgmentDebtor-Society.
¶2The case ofthe appellantbeforethis Court is that the appellanthas filedexecutionapplicationsobjectingto the executionofthedecreeandthe Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. executionapplicationsare still pending and without disposal of the said applications,the Courthasdirectedissuanceofwarrantsofpossession.
¶3We have called for the record ofthe ExecutionPetitionNo.83/2001 wherein the executionapplicationsfiled by the appellantare stated to be pending.
¶4From the record it appearsthat the appellanthas filed the Execution ApplicationNo.558/2003andExecutionApplicationNo.363/2004objecting to the executionofthe decreewhich are still pending.Record also reveals that the appellant also moved an Execution ApplicationNo.186/2009 whereinit was allegedthatthe landofwhichthe appellantwas in possession of, i.e., bearingJChasraNo.875 admeasuringan area of 167 Bighasand 70 Biswas in VillageMadanpurKhadar,had been forcefullytakenpossession ofon 26.02.2005.The appellantin the saidexecutionapplicationhas sought restorationofpossession. Thereafter,the appellantfiled anotherexecution application being Execution Application No.441/2011 seeking certain interim directionsfrom the Court qua his land. All the four execution applicationsare stillpending.
¶5The presentExecutionApplicationNo.538/2011,on which warrants ofpossessionhad been issuedto the DecreeHolder,was filedin fortherance of an ExecutionApplicationNo.347/2008whereinwarrantsof possession could not be served on accountof fresh and betterparticulars. The better particulars,beingnow madeavailable,theDecreeHoldersoughtwarrantsof possessionfor 8.48 acresoflandas describedin Amiexure-DH.Ito the said ExecutionApplicationNo.538/2011.
¶6The Annexure-DH.l to the Execution Application No.538/20n shows that it is in respectof some other Ichasranumbers with which the appellanthas no concern. On aquery put to the appellant,the appellant admitsthatthe said8,48 acresoflandofwhichwarrantsofpossessionhave now been issued is not the land in respectof which the appellantclaimed possession.
¶7The standofthe appellantis thatsincehe is awareofthe facts ofthe case,he has rightto objectand file an appealagainstanyorderpassedin the executionsincehis objectionsare pendingand since as per him the decree holderhas no right, title or interestin the land for which the warrantsof possession have been issued.
¶7We are unable to accept.this submission of the appellantfor the reasonthatthe appellanthas admittedlyno right,titleor interestin the land admeasuring8.48 acresofland for whichwarrantsofpossessionhave been issuedvide the impugnedorderdated 17.11.2011. It is onlyapartywho is aggrievedby an orderwhohastherightto filean appeal,apartywhohasno concernwiththe land for whichwarrantsofpossessionhas been issuedhas no right to agitate on behalfof others and file an appeal. As per the appellant,the land does not belongto the decreeholderbut belongsto the NoidaAuthority.In ourviewthatmakesno differencebecausethe appellant has no concernwith the land for which warrantsofpossessionhave been issuedandtheappellanthasno rightto filethepresentappeal.
¶8The appealis, accordingly,dismissedwi withno orderas to costs. may 28,2013 sv/st SANJEEVSACHDEVA,J SANJAYKISHANKAUL,J Page 4 of4
Case details
Parties and counsel
$-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + hind RAVI SHARMA ^ " T., , , , Appellant Inrough: Appellantin person, versus STATEOFUTTERP^EOT&ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESANJAYKISHANKAUL HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESANJEEVSACHDEVA
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.