Execution of a civil decree must be preceded by proper land demarcation to prevent encroachment on non-decreed property.

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to prevent respondent authorities from taking coercive actions, including demolition or eviction from their property, without due process of law

The petitioners claim possession of land in Survey No. 67/1/2 at Village Nishatpura, Bhopal

Respondent No. 5 is currently executing a 1992 civil decree (Civil Suit No. 65-A/1989) which declared her husband the Bhumiswami of Survey No. 67/1/1 and ordered the removal of constructions therein

The petitioners had previously filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC before the Executing Court, which was rejected on 17.04.2025

The petitioners allege that under the guise of this decree, the authorities intend to demolish their property situated on the adjacent Survey No. 67/1/2

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioners' property under the guise of executing a decree related to a different survey number

2. Whether a fresh demarcation of the land is required to ensure the execution of the decree does not exceed the boundaries of the decreed property

the fundamental principle of Civil Procedure that an Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree passed by the Civil Court

the procedural finality of orders passed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC when not challenged through appeal

constitutional protection against deprivation of property without "due process of law" as sought under Article 226

The Court observed that while Respondent No. 5 has a valid right to execute the decree regarding Survey No. 67/1/1, this right does not extend to encroaching upon or demolishing property situated on Survey No. 67/1/2 held by the petitioners

Although the petitioners' previous objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were rejected and attained finality, the Court noted that the core of the dispute involves a potential misdescription or confusion regarding the physical boundaries of the two adjacent survey numbers

By obtaining a consensus from both parties regarding the necessity of proper identification of the land, the Court reasoned that a demarcation is essential to prevent the execution proceedings from overreaching the scope of the original civil decree

The Court ordered that a proper demarcation of Survey No. 67/1/1 (area 0.78 Decimal) must be conducted—if not previously done—before any further action is taken regarding the execution of the decree