Ravi Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 08.02.2003 dismissing his review petition and order dated17.II.2012 whereby the Court has directed issuance ofwarrants ofpossession ofland shown mAm,exure-DH.l to Execution Application No.538 of 2011 in respect of 8.48 acres ofland which was stated to be in possession ofthe Judgment Debtor- Society.

2. The case ofthe appellant before this Court is that the appellant has filed executionapplicationsobjectingtothe executionofthedecreeandthe EFA(OS) 11/2013 2013:DHC:7979-DB execution applications are still pending and without disposal of the said applications, the Court has directed issuance ofwarrants ofpossession.

3. We have called for the record ofthe Execution Petition No.83/2001 wherein the execution applications filed by the appellant are stated to be pending.

4. From the record it appears that the appellant has filed the Execution Application No.558/2003 and Execution Application No.363/2004 objecting to the execution ofthe decree which are still pending. Record also reveals that the appellant also moved an Execution Application No.186/2009 wherein it was alleged that the land ofwhich the appellant was in possession of, i.e., bearing JChasra No.875 admeasuring an area of 167 Bighas and 70 Biswas in Village Madanpur Khadar, had been forcefully taken possession ofon26.02.2005. The appellant in the said execution application has sought restoration of possession. Thereafter, the appellant filed another execution application being Execution Application No.441/2011 seeking certain interim directions from the Court qua his land. All the four execution applications are still pending.

5. The present Execution Application No.538/2011, on which warrants ofpossession had been issued to the Decree Holder, was filed in fortherance of an Execution Application No.347/2008 wherein warrants of possession could not be served on account of fresh and better particulars. The better particulars, being now made available, the Decree Holder sought warrants of possession for 8.48 acres ofland as described in Amiexure-DH.I to the said Execution Application No.538/2011.

6. The Annexure-DH.l to the Execution Application No.538/20n shows that it is in respect of some other Ichasra numbers with which the appellant has no concern. On aquery put to the appellant, the appellant admits that the said 8,48 acres ofland ofwhich warrants ofpossession have now been issued is not the land in respect of which the appellant claimed possession.

7. The stand ofthe appellant is that since he is aware ofthe facts ofthe case, he has right to objectand file an appeal against any orderpassed in the execution since his objections are pending and since as per him the decree holder has no right, title or interest in the land for which the warrants of possession have been issued.

7. We are unable to accept.this submission of the appellant for the reason that the appellant has admittedly no right, title or interest in the land admeasuring 8.48 acres ofland for which warrants ofpossession have been issued vide the impugned order dated 17.11.2011. It is only aparty who is aggrieved byan orderwho has the right to file an appeal, apartywho has no concern with the land for which warrants ofpossession has been issued has no right to agitate on behalf of others and file an appeal. As per the appellant, the land does not belong to the decree holder but belongs to the NoidaAuthority. In ourviewthatmakes no difference becausethe appellant has no concern with the land for which warrants ofpossession have been issuedandtheappellanthasno rightto file thepresentappeal.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed wi with no order as to costs. may 28,2013 sv/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J Page 4 of[4]