'Scramble For Possession': Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Advocate Receiver Amid Clash Between Consent Decree Execution & Gujarat Tenancy Act Claims

"There is a scramble for possession, and divergent views were canvassed by both the sides. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel on the option of appointing an Advocate Receiver for administering the subject matter of the Appeal during the pendency of Special Civil Application..." In a decisive ruling addressing the procedural friction between the execution of a civil consent decree and statutory protected tenancy rights, the Supreme Court on August 20, 2026, intervened to preserve agricultural land subject to parallel litigations across the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts.

A bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that where an acute "scramble for possession" arises between decree-holders seeking vacant possession and occupants claiming protected tenancy status, appointing an independent Advocate Receiver to administer the property is the appropriate course during the pendency of statutory challenges.

The dispute pertains to approximately 18 acres and 10 gunthas of prime agricultural land situated at Sanathal village in Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad District. Following a consent decree for specific performance passed by the Bombay High Court in 2016 and subsequent execution orders directing delivery of vacant possession, the appellants asserted independent rights as "protected tenants" under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Aggrieved by interim orders of the Bombay High Court disposing of their recall application and the Gujarat High Court regulating crop harvesting, the appellants approached the top court.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether an appellate court can dismiss an execution objection application pending before a single judge without allowing a full inquiry on merits. The court was also called upon to determine how agricultural land must be administered when execution proceedings under a consent decree directly collide with proceedings testing a statutory declaration of protected tenancy under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

Appellate Court Cannot Traverse Beyond Scope Of Appeal

Examining the proceedings before the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench had exceeded its remit while hearing an appeal against an interlocutory refusal of interim protection. The bench observed that the Division Bench ought not to have simultaneously terminated the substantive recall application filed by the appellants as objectors in the ongoing execution petition.

The top court emphasized that objectors resisting execution are entitled to have their applications adjudicated in accordance with law before the executing forum. Holding that the Division Bench went beyond the scope of the appeal, the bench set aside the adverse findings and restored the recall application to the file of the Single Judge.

Court Restores Execution Objection For Proper Inquiry

The bench made it clear that it was not adverting to the underlying merits of the Memorandum of Understanding or the consent decree, as those questions remain under judicial consideration. The executing court must independently evaluate the objections raised against the delivery of vacant possession.

"After carefully examining the pleadings and the nature of the Orders dated 04.04.2022 and 28.06.2022 of the High Court of Bombay, we are of the view that the impugned Order dated 28.06.2022 has traversed beyond the scope of the subject matter of the Appeal," the bench recorded while directing that the recall application be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.

Statutory Tenancy Claims Under Section 32G And The Scramble For Possession

Turning to the parallel proceedings in Gujarat, the appellants claimed protection under an order dated June 3, 2024, passed under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, declaring them as "protected tenants." The respondent decree-holders challenged this declaration before the High Court of Gujarat through Special Civil Applications, wherein the Single Judge had devised an interim arrangement permitting crop harvesting.

The Supreme Court took note of the acute friction between the delivery proceedings initiated under the consent decree and the statutory protections claimed by the agricultural tenants. Recognizing the ground reality of conflicting claims, the bench observed that maintaining a mere status quo or ad-hoc harvesting permissions was inadequate to manage the disputed property.

Advocate Receiver Appointed To Administer Agricultural Land

To prevent further conflict and protect the interests of all contesting litigants, the apex court modified the interim orders of the Gujarat High Court and directed the induction of an Advocate Receiver to oversee the agricultural land. The bench mandated that the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court stipulate the appropriate fee and formally appoint the Receiver.

"The appointment of Advocate Receiver is subject to the final outcome of the Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024 and would inure to the benefit of the successful parties," the court directed, ensuring that neither the decree-holders nor the alleged protected tenants could prejudice the property pending final adjudication.

The Supreme Court effectively balanced the competing claims by restoring the appellants' execution objections for lawful inquiry before the Bombay High Court while placing the agricultural land under the custodial supervision of an Advocate Receiver before the Gujarat High Court. This arrangement safeguards the property until the legal validity of the statutory tenancy declaration under the Gujarat Tenancy Act is conclusively decided.

Date of Decision: August 20, 2026