An Executable Decree Cannot Be Defeated by Illegal Constructions: Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Covered Passage on Disputed Plot

“Clear and Vacant Possession Must Follow a Decree—Constructed Passage on Disputed Plot No Excuse” – Apex Court strikes down 25 years of delay, upholds rights of decree-holder in housing plot dispute. Supreme Court of India delivered a forceful verdict reaffirming that the sanctity of a judicial decree cannot be compromised by illegal constructions or internal resolutions of housing societies. A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the immediate removal of a covered passage constructed over Plot No. 5A, paving the way for the decree-holder to finally take possession after 25 years of litigation.

The Court held: “Upon such removal, the Plot No.5A shall be allotted and clear and vacant possession to be handed over to the Respondent.”

The ruling comes in the context of a protracted legal dispute between a housing society and one of its members, where a binding award of the Cooperative Court granting a plot allotment was being evaded under the pretext of non-existent mergers and subsequent illegal constructions.

“Deliberate Non-Compliance of a Decree to Exploit Increased Land Value is a Contempt of Law”

In sharp criticism of the conduct of the appellant-society, the Supreme Court noted that despite the decree having attained finality, the society willfully avoided its enforcement by falsely claiming that Plot No. 5A had lost its identity due to a merger with Plots 4 and 4A and subsequent construction of a community hall.

The Court recorded: “It has been submitted that as the value of the land has substantially enhanced, the Appellant is deliberately avoiding complying with the decree of the Cooperative Court and the Respondent has not been able to reap its benefits for the last 25 years.”

Photographs relied upon by both parties showed that a substantial portion of the land remained open and unoccupied, contradicting the society’s claim of total merger and construction. The Court held that the existence of a minor covered passage did not defeat the enforceability of the decree, and in fact, could be removed without affecting adjoining constructions.

The litigation stemmed from a dispute over plot allotment in a cooperative society in Nagpur, where Ganpati Yadavrao Kumbhare, a society member, initially sought Plot Nos. 3 and 4 in 1991 but amended his claim in 1996 to seek Plot No. 5A. The Cooperative Court decreed in his favour in 2000, directing the society to allot and hand over possession of Plot No. 5A. All appeals failed, but execution was stalled on the grounds that the plot had allegedly ceased to exist due to merger and construction.

The society claimed the merger took place in 1985, before the dispute arose, and that third parties had since built shops and a community hall. However, the merger was never sanctioned by any competent authority, and the constructions were admittedly unauthorised.

The Executing Court initially sided with the society, but the District Judge reversed that order in 2015, observing that the society’s objections had never been raised before the Cooperative Court and that any construction made was illegal and demolishable.

The High Court affirmed this finding, describing the society’s conduct as “frivolous and malicious” and imposed ₹25,000 in costs. The Supreme Court has now upheld that decision, ensuring final relief to the decree-holder.

At the core of the case was a critical question of enforceability: Can a final decree of a statutory forum like the Cooperative Court be rendered ineffective by internal resolutions, unapproved mergers of land parcels, and subsequent unauthorised construction?

The Supreme Court’s answer was emphatic: No.

The Court ruled that:
“The direction for removal of the structure standing on Plot No. 5A and the consequent allotment and handing over of possession thereof to the Respondent shall have no bearing on the rights, interests, or possession of the said shop owners.”

While protecting the rights of intervening third-party shop owners on Plots 4 and 4A, the Court found no evidence of valid merger, and held that the passage constructed on Plot No. 5A was not an essential part of the community hall or any other building, and could easily be removed.

The Court also rejected all intervention applications and dismissed the civil appeals, holding that excuses based on alleged “impossibility” of execution due to illegal acts post-decree cannot be sustained in law.

Supreme Court Sends Clear Message: Decrees Must Be Respected, Illegal Constructions Must Fall

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has set a powerful precedent against willful disobedience of judicial decrees by housing societies, especially when motivated by increased land values. The judgment reinforces the principle that "construction in defiance of judicial orders will not override the rights secured by law."

The Court concluded: “We find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the High Court warranting interference.”

Date of Decision: October 9, 2025