UDAY KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LONG ago the Privy Council observed that in India the real ordeal for a decree holder began after he was able to obtain the decree. Now the position seems to be even worse and it appears that a decree against the Government is practically unexecutable atleast at the level of the execution court. The petitioner who is the decree holder finding no way to have his decree executed has come to this court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution making a desperate appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner successfully established his rights and title over the suit land in two successive suits. In the first case the trial court declared his title over the land in dispute and decreed the suit in his favour. The State and its officials, defendants in the suit took the matter in appeal being Title Appeal No. 4 of 1984. But the appellate court rejected the appeal and affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. Notwithstanding the judgments and decrees passed by courts of competent jurisdiction the defendants persisted in their interference with the petitioner 'sright over the proeprty and this forced him to bring another suit being Title Suit No. 4 of 1997 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the State and its officials. This suit too was decreed in his favour.

(3.) HAVING regard to the nature of dispute and apprehending a law and order problem the execution court directed the petitioner to deposit necessary cost for deputation of Magistrate and armed forces under whose protection the decree might be executed and the petitioner might be able to construct the boundary wall. The petitioner duly deposited the cost for deputation of Magistrate and armed forces. That was on 20.8.2001. According to the petitioner after the necessary cost was deposited, requisitions and reminders were sent to the Dist. Magistrate and the Supdt. of Police but the team of Magistrate and armed forces was never made available for execution of the decree.