Writ Relief Cannot Undo Possession Delivered Under an Unstayed Decree Through Due Process

The petitioner sought, under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), removal of a police seal from premises and protection for himself and his family

The petitioner and his father had occupied company quarters as employees of Texmaco Infrastructure & Holdings Ltd.; after they ceased to be employees, the company obtained a possession decree dated 10 February 2025 in CS DJ 14127/2016

In execution, warrants of possession were issued, and possession of Flat B-28 and the internally interconnected Flat B-23 was taken from the petitioner and handed over to the company

The petitioner’s appeal against the decree was pending, but no stay had been granted

He also submitted that some of his goods remained inside the premises

Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief against the sealing and possession of the premises when possession had been taken pursuant to an unstayed decree and execution proceedings

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to enter the premises, accompanied by police, to retrieve any goods left there

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS

The Court treated the subsisting possession decree and the execution court’s warrants as the basis for the company’s entitlement to possession, noting that the decree had not been stayed despite the petitioner’s pending appeal

The Court’s reasoning reflects that, in the circumstances before it, possession taken through execution of an unstayed decree did not warrant the requested interference, while the petitioner could be allowed supervised access to recover personal goods

The Court found that the premises had been allotted to the petitioner and his father by reason of their employment, which had ended, and that the petitioner therefore had no continuing right, title or interest in them

The company’s possession decree had been executed through warrants, and the pending appeal did not prevent execution because no stay was in force

Accordingly, the Court found no basis to set aside or interfere with the possession taken. However, given the petitioner’s claim that his goods remained inside, it ordered a supervised opportunity for their retrieval

It directed the police to accompany the petitioner to the premises at 11:00 a.m. the following day, permit him to remove any goods found there, videograph the entry, and re-seal the premises afterward

The petition and pending application were disposed of