HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL REVISION No. - 18 of 2024 Along with : 1. Civil Revision No. 130 of 2023: Hazi Meharban (Since Deceased) and 11 others Versus Satya Narayan ( Since Deceased) and 17 others Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Gaurav Kumar Srivastava and Shri Kamal Kishore Mishra learned counsel for respondent/ opposite party. 2. These two civil revisions have been preferred against the orders dated 06.11.2023 and 23.8.2023 passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution Case No. 3 of 2012 (Satya Narayan Vs. Rifaqat and Others). 3. By means of the impugned order, the learned Executing Court has allowed the application filed by the decree-holder seeking delivery of possession over the decreed land and has dismissed the objection filed by the revisionist/judgment-debtor. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/judgment-debtor submitted that the suit for specific performance of the contract/agreement to sell filed by the respondent was initially dismissed. The said decree was challenged in a first Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Himanshu Srivastava, Siddhartha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Akash Kumar Verma, Devid Kumar Singh, Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Kamal Kishor Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt, Satya Prakash Rai, Tabrez Ahmad Hazi Meharban and 11 others .....Revisionist(s) Satya Narayan and 15 others .....Opposite Party(s) appeal, and the appeal was thereafter allowed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said judgment passed by the first appellate court was then challenged before this Court by means of a second appeal. Although the second appeal was dismissed, certain substantial issues pertaining to the area of the land were decided therein. It was submitted that, from the very beginning, neither the exact extent nor the boundaries of the disputed land, in respect of which the suit for specific performance had been instituted, were disclosed. For the first time, the area of the disputed land, along with a map describing its boundaries, was filed before the Executing Court. The same was also challenged, and it was held by this Court in Second Appeal No. 938 of 2012 that, although a total area of 5,050 square yards had been referred to in the agreement to sell, the said area was to be read and considered as 4,000 square yards. It was submitted that the said area of 4,000 square yards was determined by the Second Appellate Court on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, although the area of the disputed land was reduced by the Second Appellate Court, the identification thereof still remains disputed, as its boundaries have not been properly specified in the draft prepared before the Executing Court. Similarly, the map of the decreed property, namely, Khata No. 174 comprising Khasra Nos. 801 and Khata No.150 comprising of Khasra No.797, has not been properly identified. Apart from the same, the decree-holder has annexed a map of the decreed property, i.e., Khata No. 174 and Khata No.150 (Khasra Nos. 801 and 797), along with the draft sale deed. The said map annexed to the draft sale deed would form part of the deed once the same is executed pursuant to the directions of the Executing Court. 5. It was further submitted that execution of the sale deed without properly disclosing the actual boundaries of Khasra Nos. 801 and 797 would lead to further litigation and cause disputes between the parties for various reasons. Firstly, the area initially claimed in the plaint has been reduced, and the total area which is now the subject matter of execution is only 4,000 square yards, the boundaries whereof have not been properly disclosed. The decree-holder, under the guise of the order passed by the Executing Court, may take possession over the entire area comprised in Khasra Nos. 801 and 797, even though he is not entitled to do so. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder submitted that the learned Executing Court has committed no error in the findings recorded by it. The area reduced by the Second Appellate Court has been duly taken into consideration, and the draft sale deed submitted before the CLRE No. 18 of 2024 2 Executing Court also mentions the same area. A map of the property proposed to be included in the sale deed has also been annexed, which further specifies its boundaries. It was submitted that it is incorrect to argue on behalf of the revisionist that the decree-holder/plaintiff has not furnished the identification of the disputed property, except at the initial stage of the proceedings, i.e., at the time of institution of the suit. It was submitted that, since the suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to separately disclose the boundaries of the property. Moreover, the property sought to be transferred in execution is agricultural land, which has been identified by its Gata numbers, and hence there is no impediment in execution of the decree. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court. 8. From the facts and submissions advanced by both the parties, this Court is of the view that the property, whether forming the subject matter of the suit or the execution proceedings, must be properly identified; otherwise, the same may give rise to further disputes. It is apparent that the subject matter of the suit comprises two parcels of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 801 and 797. Therefore, the Executing Court shall ensure that the decree- holder is delivered possession only over an area of 4,000 square yards out of the total area comprised in Khasra Nos. 801 and 797, after properly identifying and demarcating the boundaries of the said area. 9. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or on the correctness of the impugned order. However, the aforesaid observation is being made by way of guidance to the Executing Court, which shall ensure that, at the time of satisfaction of the decree, the execution proceedings conform to the observations made hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, both the civil revisions are dismissed. September 29, 2026 Mukesh CLRE No. 18 of 2024 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad