AZIZUR RAHAMAN Vs. SUKUMAR DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Rules, were heard together as the points involved in both the Rules are, the same. Both the Rules are against the order dated November 17, 1981 by which the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah, allowed Misc. Cases no. 120 of 1975 and no. 52 of 1978 and dismissed the execution petition against the opposite parties in these Rules.

(2.) THE petitioners in both the Rules obtained order for eviction of opposite parties under the Rehabilitation of Displaced persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised Occupation of Land, act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1951 ). In terms of the order, the opposite parties in both the "rules along with others were asked! 'to vacate the disputed property within 60 days. The opposite parties however were also found, to be displaced persons and they were held to be entitled to protection under section 4 of the Act of 1951 The order directed ascertainment of compensation. Compensation was subsequently assessed and the opposite parties were directed to pay compensation. The petitioner put the order dated November 1, 1957 into execution before the learned, Munsif in title Execution Case no. 88 of 1974. Sukumar Dey, opposite party in C. R. 613 of 1982, filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil/procedure registered as Misc. Case no. 120 of 1975 in which he objected to the execution on several grounds. According to the opposite, party Sukumar Dey the order was not executable and the opposite party was in adverse possession since 1948. The opposite parties, Manihdranath Dasgupta, Makhan das and Anil krishna Das of C. R. 614 of 1982 filed an application under section 47 of the CP. Code and the same was registered as misc. Case no. 52 of 1978. It was contended that the execution case was not maintainable. It was further contended that the opposite parties were held as displaced persons by the competent authority in C. A. Case no. 50 of 1952 and as they had not been provided by Government with house or land or any alternative accommodation, they were not liable to be evicted. There was also the contention that they were in adverse possession.

(3.) THE learned Munsif by the impugned order allowed the applications under section 47 C. P. Code. The learned Munsif held that the finding of the competent authority shows that the case of the opposite parties should be referred to the State for alternative accommodation. The learned Munsif further held that the judgment debtors were not liable to eviction until alternative accommodation was provided to them. The learned Munsif also held that apart from referring the case of the petitioners for assessing monthly compensation no other evictable order was passed by the competent authority.