MANORAMA BADU MOHAPATRA Vs. GIRISH CHANDRA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the present writ application have approached this Court with the following prayer :

(2.) THE petitioners allege that the opp. parties have demolished the residential houses, which are the subject matter of Title Appeal No. 51 of 2000 pending before the learned District Judge, Puri and trying to dispossess them forcibly without following due process of law and without giving the petitioners any notice, even though no execution case was tiled by opp. parties 1 and 2. It is further alleged that opp. parties 1 and 2, with the help of other opp. parties demolished the houses of the petitioners in presence of the district officials and local police. The dispute relates to Mouza Dandimala Sahi, Khata No. 112, Plot No. 99, measuring Ac. 0.160, Plot No. 100 measuring Ac. 0 070, Plot No. 101 measuring Ac. 0.040 and Plot No. 102 measuring Ac. 0.050 situated in Puri town adjacent to Badadanda, which was the subject matter of dispute in two suits bearing O.S. No. 212 of 1977 and O. S. No. 211 of 1977 before the learned Munsif (Civil Judge, Jr. Division), Puri, O. S. No. 2LI of 1977, which was re numbered as O. S. No. 90/211 of 84/77, was decreed on 12 5 2000 with the direction that the defendants are to deliver vacant possession of the suit property within two months from that date, failing which the plaintiff may take action for eviction of the defendant from the suit property and for recover possession of the same. The petitioners, who are the defendants have preferred Title Appeal No. 51 of 2000 before the learned District Judge, Puri, which has been admitted and the present opp. parties 1 and 2 have entered appearance. According to the petitioners, no execution case was filed for execution of the decree, inasmuch as Radhashyam Badu Mohapatra (opp, party No. 9) has also preferred a separate appeal against the judgment and decree. At para 17 of the writ petition, it is averred that one Sanjaya Narayan Sanyal also filed a Title Suit against one Bauribandhu Das against the self same plot numbers for eviction, but the petitioners were not impleaded as parties, even though they were possessing the entire disputed land. The Addl. Munsif, Puri, (now Addl. Civil Judge, Jr. Division,), decreed the suit on 3 9 1983 and the defendant, Bauribandhu Das was directed to give vacant possession ofthe land to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant preferred a Title Appeal before the learned District Judge, which was dismissed on 10 4 1984. The defendants preferred Second Appeal No. 232 of 1984 before this Court, which ended in compromise on 8 12 1984, wherein the defendants agreed to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises within two weeks thereafter.

(3.) IN paragraph 22 of the writ petition, it is averred that although there is a decree against the present petitioners, the same is not executable without filing an execution case. Even otherwise also, the description of the suit property is not specific and not identifiable from the decree. The defendants were directed to give vacant possession of the suit schedule land within three moths from the date of decree to the plaintiff and it was directed that otherwise it was open to the plaintiff to take possession by following due procedure of law. It is asserted that even though accepting the fact that the demolition is legal for the sake of agument, the plaintiff could not have demolished an inch of the premises other than the portion disputed and shown in red in the sketch map attached to the decree, but however, the plaintiffs got some rooms demolished, which were never the subject matter of the dispute excepting two rooms, allother rooms have been demolished. All these illegalities were committed in presence of the police officers, one Magistrate from the Collectorate and a court pcon cum process server. Hence, the writ petition on the aforesaid prayer.