MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) The case of the petitioner is that to execute a decree passed in Original Suit No. 679 of 1984, which directed removal of certain constructions standing over plot no.2063 and plot no.2074, the decree-holder filed an execution application against the Indian Oil Corporation (judgement debtor-petitioner). An objection was filed by the petitioner that the entire area of plot Nos. 2063 and 2074 did not stand in the name of the decree holder but a part thereof stood in the name of Nagar Palika through whom the petitioner had obtained possession under valid transfer documents and, therefore, without proper demarcation as to whether the constructions sought to be demolished stood over the area belonging to the decree-holder, the decree should not be executed.
(2.) The aforesaid dispute raised in the execution proceedings came up before this Court in Writ C No. 63362 of 2014, which was disposed of by a detailed order dated 28th November, 2014 after hearing both sides. The relevant observations contained in the order dated 28th November, 2014 are extracted here-in-below : "Having regard to the objections raised before the execution court and on a close scrutiny of the impugned orders it is seen that the execution court has not considered a very material and relevant aspect of the matter which relates to the identity of decree holder's claim, rather a direction for demolition of the walls has straight away been issued in the execution proceedings. Identification of a claim in respect of disputed property is a condition-precedent for passing an order either for demolition of walls or taking over possession and for this purpose the execution court ought not to have ignored the extent of decree holder's claim. For this purpose, the decree is liable to be construed in the background of judgment and even pleadings. The purpose of demolition of walls directed in the decree is to attach a meaning to the demarcation of decree holder's claim and nothing beyond. It is true that the execution court cannot go beyond decree but in the peculiar situation of present case, the court below has certainly failed to discharge its duty to identify the disputed property in terms of the judgment passed in favour of the decree holder. The order passed by the Apex Court is bound to be complied with in its letter and spirit. The report submitted by the District Magistrate is bound to be scrutinised for the purpose of execution of decree in its true context. The execution court is bound to undertake measurement of the vacant land so as to separate proportionate area which being recorded in the name of decree holder was decreed in terms of the judgment. The prayer for satisfaction of decree beyond the claim of decree holder would lie simply for the compliance of terms of decree as the situation appears to be in the present case." "The execution court is directed to carry out the directions issued by the Apex Court in the light of observations made herein above and the necessary orders be passed expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is filed. It is clarified that on measurement of vacant land as per District Magistrate's report, if it is found that the existing walls are standing within the area recorded in the name of decree holder, the decree be satisfied by demolishing the walls to the extent as required. The court may also order for assistance of necessary police force. Gainless to say that the parties have contested the suit without impleading Nagar Palika and at this stage, the court refrains from recording any comment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
(3.) It appears that the execution case proceeded further, and, on 9th January, 2015, an order was passed by the executing Court issuing a Parwana to the Court appointed Amin to carry out demarcation proceeding and to execute the decree if it is found that the constructions stood over the land of the decree-holder.;