Supreme Court Upholds Possession Despite Irregular Police Assistance in Execution: Om Parkash vs. Amar Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 21 October 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 987

Judges: Navin Sinha, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a court order for possession of property be overturned if police assistance was used without explicit court orders? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case where a decree holder obtained possession of land with police help, even though the court hadn’t specifically authorized it. This judgment examines the balance between the need for lawful execution of court orders and the procedural requirements that must be followed.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment. The judgment was authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over land ownership. The judgment debtor, Amar Singh, claimed ownership based on a sale deed from 1973. However, the land was acquired by the government, and Om Parkash, the decree holder, purchased it in a court auction in 1990. Despite obtaining a sale certificate in 1998, Om Parkash faced numerous legal challenges from Amar Singh, preventing him from taking possession of the land. After a protracted legal battle, the decree holder finally obtained a decree for possession.

The decree holder, Om Parkash, sought to execute the decree for possession. During the execution process, the Tehsildar, anticipating potential law and order issues, requested police assistance without a specific order from the court. The police helped in the delivery of the possession to the decree holder. The High Court later ruled that the delivery of possession was illegal because the police assistance was not authorized by the court, and ordered the land to be returned to the judgment debtor, Amar Singh. The decree holder then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The decree holder initially faced dismissal of his execution proceedings due to being time-barred. He then filed a fresh suit for possession, which was decreed in his favor. The judgment debtor’s suit for an injunction was dismissed. The judgment debtor’s first appeal was also dismissed. The decree holder then initiated fresh execution proceedings. The judgment debtor’s objections to these proceedings were also dismissed. The High Court, however, set aside the delivery of possession due to the use of police assistance without prior court orders, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):

• Order 21 Rule 25, CPC: This rule deals with the endorsement by the officer entrusted with the execution of a decree. It states that if the officer is unable to execute the process, the court shall examine the reasons for the inability and pass appropriate orders. The court noted that no report was submitted by the bailiff asking for police assistance under this rule.
• Order 21 Rule 35(3), CPC: This rule provides for the procedure for delivery of possession of immovable property. The court noted that there was no report under this rule requesting police assistance for effectuating delivery of possession.

Arguments

Arguments by the Decree Holder (Om Parkash):

• The decree holder argued that the High Court erred in holding that he resorted to unlawful methods for executing the decree.
• He submitted that he never requested police assistance.
• The Tehsildar, apprehending law and order issues, suo moto sought police assistance from the District Magistrate.
• The Deputy Commissioner instructed the Tehsildar to send a compliance report to the court directly.
• Possession was delivered on 11.10.2013, and the executing court accepted the report and closed the proceedings.
• The decree holder emphasized that he had purchased the land in a court auction in 1990 and had been fighting for possession for a long time.

Arguments by the Judgment Debtor (Amar Singh):

• The judgment debtor contended that the High Court’s concern was justified.
• He argued that using police force to take possession without court orders is a dangerous practice.
• A decree holder cannot use police force to take possession contrary to the law.
• Such actions subvert the law and misuse the legal process.
• Possession can only be taken in accordance with law, and if dispossession is unlawful, the evicted person must be restored to possession until legally evicted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether delivery of possession to the decree holder with police assistance was vitiated in the absence of any orders by the Court for providing such police assistance?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order 21 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Regarding endorsement by the officer entrusted with execution of process.
• Order 21 Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Regarding procedure for delivery of possession of immovable property.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Order 21 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and stated that no report was submitted by the bailiff asking for police assistance as required under the said provision.
• The Court considered Order 21 Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and stated that there was no report under this rule requesting police assistance for effectuating delivery of possession.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors. While the Court acknowledged the procedural lapses in obtaining police assistance, it also considered the fact that the judgment debtor had no legal right to remain on the land. The Court balanced the need to uphold procedural correctness with the practical reality that the decree holder was entitled to possession.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court observed that the executive authorities acted with over-enthusiasm without proper court orders. However, the Court also noted that the judgment debtor had no legal right to remain on the land. The Court decided not to order redelivery of possession, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case.

The Court stated, “we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the police with regard to the delivery of possession by resorting to a manner outside the procedure of the court, using the court orders as an umbrella was wholly unwarranted.”

The Court also noted, “The executive authorities were completely unjustified in their over enthusiasm without asking for proper court orders regarding police assistance despite the fact that they were fully aware that possession was to be delivered in pursuance of a court order.”

Further, the Court clarified, “We, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which possession has been directed to be redelivered to judgment debtor, and the execution proceedings have been revived for fresh delivery of possession to the decree holder.”

Key Takeaways

• Police assistance during the execution of court orders for possession must be obtained through proper court orders.
• Executive authorities should not act with over-enthusiasm and must adhere to the prescribed legal procedures.
• Even if there are procedural lapses, the court may not interfere with the delivery of possession if the judgment debtor has no legal right to the property.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that its decision was based on the specific facts of the case and should not be seen as a condonation of the executive authorities’ actions.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for redelivery of possession to the judgment debtor and the revival of execution proceedings. The Court upheld the delivery of possession to the decree holder, but cautioned the executive authorities against future misadventures without proper court orders.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while procedural lapses in obtaining police assistance during execution of a decree are not condoned, the courts may not interfere with the delivery of possession if the judgment debtor has no legal right to the property. This case clarifies the importance of following due process while also considering the substantive rights of the parties involved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Om Parkash vs. Amar Singh highlights the need for strict adherence to legal procedures during the execution of court orders, particularly when it involves police assistance. While the Court acknowledged the procedural lapses, it ultimately upheld the delivery of possession to the decree holder, considering the judgment debtor’s lack of legal right to the property. This decision emphasizes the balance between procedural correctness and substantive justice.

Category

Parent Category: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Child Categories:

• Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
• Execution of Decree, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
• Delivery of Possession, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Categories:

• Section Order 21 Rule 25, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Section Order 21 Rule 35(3), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

FAQ

Q: Can police help be used to take possession of property if there is a court order?

A: Yes, but only if the court specifically orders or authorizes police assistance. Using police force without proper court orders is not allowed.

Q: What happens if possession of property is taken with police help, but without court orders?

A: The High Court may order the property to be returned to the previous owner. However, the Supreme Court may not interfere with the possession if the previous owner has no legal right to the property.

Q: What should a person do if they are facing difficulty in taking possession of a property even after a court order?

A: The person should approach the court and seek specific orders for police assistance, if required. They should not take the law into their own hands or seek help from the police without court authorization.

Q: What is the role of the Tehsildar in the execution of a court order?

A: The Tehsildar is responsible for executing the court order for possession. They should follow the correct legal procedures and obtain court orders for police assistance if needed.

Q: What is the significance of this Supreme Court judgment?

A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of following due process during the execution of court orders. It clarifies that while procedural lapses are not condoned, the courts may not interfere with the delivery of possession if the person challenging it has no legal right to the property.