Authorities must fully implement land-dispute execution orders and remove encroachments within due process.

The petitioner claimed title and possession over the disputed land, originally purchased by his father in 1959 and subsequently devolved upon the petitioner and his brothers through partition. He alleged that the private respondents had trespassed upon the land and relied upon a forged and fabricated Mahdanama to obstruct his possession.

In Land Dispute Case No. 57 of 2012, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Manjhaul, passed an order dated 13 December 2012 recognising the petitioner’s title and possession and restraining the private respondents. The order was upheld in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, who also directed initiation of criminal proceedings concerning the allegedly forged document.

In Execution Case No. 02 of 2017–18, an order dated 19 April 2018 directed restoration of possession to the petitioner, removal of encroachment and police protection. The petitioner alleged continued non-compliance, including failure to remove the entire construction and failure to lodge an FIR against the private respondents.

The State submitted that the land had been measured, that encroachment of 0.14 decimal and encroachment upon the Survey Sarak had been identified, and that possession was ultimately delivered to the petitioner on 7 May 2026 in the presence of a Magistrate and police personnel, supported by a spot report and photographs.

Whether the respondents had fully complied with the order dated 19 April 2018 passed in Execution Case No. 02 of 2017–18, particularly concerning restoration of possession and removal of encroachment and construction?

Whether the authorities were required to take further steps to ensure complete implementation of the execution order in accordance with due process of law?

The Court applied the principle that a final order of a competent statutory authority must be effectively and completely implemented by the administrative authorities concerned.

Where an execution order directs restoration of possession and removal of encroachment, partial compliance does not discharge the authorities’ obligation; all consequential steps must be taken in accordance with law and due process.

The Court considered the State’s submission that possession had been delivered to the petitioner on 7 May 2026 and that steps had been taken to identify and remove the encroachment.

However, it found that the encroachment had not been removed completely despite the specific execution order dated 19 April 2018.

Thus, even though possession had allegedly been restored and some remedial steps had been undertaken, the Court treated such action as incomplete compliance.

It consequently directed the concerned authorities to take all positive and expeditious steps necessary to implement the execution order, subject to following the due process of law.

The respondents were directed to ensure compliance with that order and to take all necessary steps, preferably within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, after following due process of law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on those terms.