Article 227 interference is unwarranted where execution follows admitted compliance with settlement obligations.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 28 November 2025 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pampore, in Execution Petition No. 71/2019, directing the Tehsildar, Pampore, to evict him from the residential house within fifteen days.

The parties’ dispute arose from the petitioner’s claim to a share in family property comprising land and a residential house. Their dispute was settled before the Lok Adalat on 29 March 2014 and again on 6 December 2014, followed by a Family Settlement Deed dated 31 December 2014, registered on 14 February 2015.

Under the settlement, the petitioner was to receive land in Survey No. 2799 in lieu of his share in the residential house, while the respondent was to retain the house.

The petitioner alleged that he had received only five marlas of land and that the remaining land had not been delivered. The respondent contended that the petitioner had received the entire land to which he was entitled.

Before the Lok Adalat on 23 June 2018, the petitioner admitted that he had taken possession of the complete 28.32 marlas of land in November 2017 and undertook to vacate the residential house by the end of March 2019.

As the petitioner did not vacate, the Executing Court directed his eviction, including with police assistance if necessary.

An interim status quo order passed by the High Court on 3 December 2025 continued during the proceedings.

Whether the Executing Court could direct the petitioner’s eviction from the residential house without first examining or securing delivery of the land allegedly due to him under the Lok Adalat settlements and Family Settlement Deed.

Whether the impugned execution order disclosed jurisdictional error, perversity, or any other ground warranting interference under the High Court’s limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Article 227 confers a limited supervisory and correctional jurisdiction on the High Court, which is not appellate and may be exercised only where a subordinate court acts without or beyond jurisdiction, fails to exercise jurisdiction, violates natural justice, or commits a patent error, grave injustice, or manifest perversity.

Lok Adalat awards founded on a compromise are enforceable in accordance with their terms, and execution must remain confined to the award, decree, and settlement forming its basis.

In execution proceedings, the court may issue a warrant for delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC and enforce an obligation through the mechanisms contemplated by Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, where applicable.

The execution of one component of a settlement cannot ordinarily be allowed to cause prejudice by disregarding a corresponding obligation; however, the court must determine that obligation from the compromise, award, settlement deed, and admitted factual record.

Although the petitioner argued that eviction was conditional upon prior delivery of 28.32 marlas of land, the Court found that the record contained his categorical admission before the Lok Adalat on 23 June 2018 that he had received possession of the complete land forming his share in November 2017.

That admission was supported by the Tehsildar’s demarcation report dated 9 May 2018.

The petitioner had consequently undertaken to vacate the residential house by the end of March 2019, but failed to do so.

Since the alleged non-delivery of land was inconsistent with the petitioner’s recorded admission and undertaking, the Executing Court was justified in enforcing the outstanding obligation to hand over the house.

The impugned order therefore did not exhibit lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or a patent legal error warranting Article 227 intervention.

The direction requiring the Tehsildar, Pampore, to secure the petitioner’s eviction within fifteen days, with police assistance if necessary, was upheld.

The petition was dismissed along with the pending applications, and the interim status quo order was vacated.