Execution of a decree must be strictly confined to the decreed property through prior mandatory demarcation.

The petitioners moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondent authorities from taking coercive actions, including demolition or eviction, against their property located at Survey No. 67/1/2 of Village Nishatpura, Bhopal

The petitioners claim possession of this land via sale deeds dating back to 1989-1992

Conversely, the husband of respondent No. 5 had secured a civil decree in 1992 (Civil Suit No. 65-A/1989) for the declaration of title and removal of construction regarding the adjacent land, Survey No. 67/1/1

Respondent No. 5 is currently pursuing execution of that decree

The petitioners previously filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC before the Executing Court, which was rejected on April 17, 2025; no appeal was filed against that rejection

The petitioners alleged that under the guise of the decree for Survey No. 67/1/1, the authorities intended to demolish structures on their land in Survey No. 67/1/2

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be restrained from taking coercive actions against the petitioners’ property in Survey No. 67/1/2 while executing a decree specifically pertaining to Survey No. 67/1/1

2. Whether a fresh demarcation of the decretal land is necessary to ensure the execution does not exceed the scope of the civil decree

The court relied on the fundamental principle of execution law that an Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree passed by the Civil Court

It considered the procedural framework of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding resistance to the execution of a decree

Furthermore, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that state action follows the "due process of law" regarding property rights

The court observed that the dispute centered on the potential misidentification of land boundaries during the execution of a long-standing decree.

While Respondent No. 5 has a legitimate right to execute the decree for Survey No. 67/1/1, this right does not extend to any property situated within Survey No. 67/1/2

The court noted that although the petitioners' previous objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC had been rejected, the primary concern remained the accuracy of the physical execution

By integrating the petitioners' concerns with Respondent No. 5’s willingness to proceed based on proper identification, the court reasoned that a formal demarcation was the only way to satisfy the requirement that the execution remains strictly within the limits of the decretal land (0.78 Decimal of Survey No. 67/1/1)

This ensures that the state authorities do not inadvertently infringe upon properties not covered by the judicial mandate

The court ordered that a proper demarcation of Survey No. 67/1/1 (area .78 Decimal) must be conducted before any further execution actions are taken, provided such demarcation had not been previously concluded

The court clarified that these observations are limited to the parties involved in this specific petition