CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1104 OF 2019

7th January 2020

Petitioner Counsel: Shri Mahesh Rai
Respondent Counsel: Shri A. V. Palshikar
Act Name: Constitution of India, 1950

Cases Cited :
Para 4: The General Manager of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards Vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh, (1872) 14 MIA 605

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard Shri Mahesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Shri A. V. Palshikar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
Notice to respondent No.4 has not been issued as yet and we do not think it necessary to do so. The reason being the necessary inference that can be drawn from the admissions given by the petitioners themselves in the petition. They appear in paragraph 4. The averments contained in paragraph 4 read thus :
"That, the respondent No.4 filed an Civil Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.94/2003 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Telhara, Distt. Akola in order to get the possession of the agricultural land which are in the possession of the petitioners. The said civil suit was decreed by order and judgment dated 3.7.2010. The respondent No.4 in order to execute the said order and judgment filed Regular Darkhast No.4/2013 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Telhara and the said execution proceedings are still pending before the learned trial Court.”

3. In paragraph 5, it is stated that the respondent No.4 moved an application before the Executing Court seeking directions to the Police Authority to provide protection to facilitate sowing operation on the lands of which the petitioners are claiming to be in possession of. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the execution proceeding has been dismissed in default and this is on the instructions that he has been given by all the petitioners recently. He further submits that when the execution proceeding has been dismissed, no attempt for forcible dispossession of the petitioners ought to have been made by the respondent No.4 and the remaining respondents ought not to have rendered any assistance in any manner to the respondent No.4 in his such an action, especially when there is no order passed by any Court whatsoever including the High Court, to the Police Authority to give police protection or assistance, to the respondent No.4 in obtaining forcible possession from the petitioner.

4. We would have accepted all these contentions of the petitioners had the conduct of the petitioners deserved it. Here, admittedly, the decree passed against the petitioners in Regular Civil Suit No.94/2003, directing the petitioners to vacate the lands in their possession and handing over peaceful possession of these lands to the respondent No.4 has attained finality. When Civil Court passes a decree against the judgment debtor to vacate the land and handover peaceful possession of the same to the decree holder, a judgment debtor is obliged under the law to obey the decree of the Civil Court and voluntarily handover the possession within given time without requiring a decree holder to file execution proceedings.
Ordinarily, a judgment debtor should not create a situation wherein a decree holder would be required or compelled to once again knock at the doors of the Civil Court for enforcing or executing a decree which he has obtained from the Civil Court, or otherwise the decree will only be reduced to a paper decree having no meaning. A judgment debtor must respect the law by showing willful and voluntary compliance with the law. If the judgment debtor, inspite of a direction given to him to act in a particular way, refuses to act in that way and seeks refuge in some technicality of law, such judgment debtor would not deserve any help from this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Inspite of such conduct on the part of a judgment debtor, if this Court is to lend its helping hand to such a person, a litigant would loose his faith in the legal system of the country and would start resorting to "Courts of Men" and not “Courts of law”. We need not elaborate the concept of "Courts of Men" as it is within the common knowledge of every litigant of this country.
Besides, the petitioners have enjoyed the possession of the lands in question for about a decade and even today, the petitioners are desirous of perpetuating their such illegal possession. In a celebrated case of The General Manager of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards vs. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh, reported in (1872) 14 MIA 605 the Privy Council had said that in India it is very easy to obtain a decree from a Civil Court and it is very difficult to execute the decree. It famously says that the ordeal of a litigant in India really begins after he obtains a decree from the Civil Court and it happens when the decree holder is compel to initiate execution proceeding. If this Court is to come to the help of petitioners who are judgment debtors as in the present case in the facts and circumstances discussed earlier, this Court would be doing great disservice to law and system of administration of justice and in that case, what was said about more than 100 years ago by the Privy Council, would continue to hold the field.
In the circumstances, we find that this is a frivolous and vexatious petition filed by the petitioner and it deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5. The petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- each to be paid by each of the 29 petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of order, failing which the same would be recovered by the Collector, Amravati as arrears of land revenue.

6. The costs shall be deposited by each of the petitioners within the stipulated time in the account of the High Court Legal Services SubCommittee, Nagpur and if there is any failure on the part of the petitioners or any of them to deposit the costs, same shall be intimated by Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to Collector Amravati for taking necessary steps for recovery in the matter.

7. The petitioners are further directed to not to disturb the fruits of the decree obtained by respondent No.4.