The Supreme Court has set aside two orders passed by the Orissa High Court and a civil court in Keonjhar, holding that an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be entertained after a decree has already been fully executed. The apex court ruled that the State authorities acted belatedly and without legal basis while questioning the execution of a land decree that had already attained finality.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a civil suit filed in 1983 by Ananda Chandra Panda concerning ownership over a parcel of land in Keonjhar district, Odisha. The suit was initially dismissed in 1994 by the trial court.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Suicide Abetment Case, Says Angry Words Alone Don’t Prove Criminal
However, in 1999, the first appellate court partly allowed Panda’s appeal and declared his right, title, and interest over Plot No. 53 under Khata No. 19, measuring 0.08 decimals. The court, however, rejected claims relating to another plot where a house stood.
This appellate judgment became final.
Following the decree, execution proceedings were initiated in 2000. In August 2006, after a field verification by the court-appointed commissioner and bailiff, possession of the land was formally delivered to the decree holder. The executing court recorded full satisfaction of the decree.
Dispute Over Execution
Several months later, the State authorities filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC, alleging that possession had been wrongly delivered and that Plot No. 54 had been handed over instead of Plot No. 53.
Read Also:-Delhi High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Show ‘Ba*ds
They sought:
- Cancellation of the delivery of possession
- Fresh demarcation of the land
- Restraint on construction by the decree holder
The civil court allowed this application in January 2007, holding that the issue could be examined under Section 47. This view was later upheld by the Orissa High Court in 2010.
Aggrieved by these orders, the legal heirs of Ananda Chandra Panda approached the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court Observed
The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took a firm view against the reopening of execution proceedings.
The court noted that Section 47 of the CPC allows courts to decide questions relating to execution only during the pendency of execution proceedings, not after the decree has been fully satisfied.
“The execution proceedings had already concluded, and possession had been delivered. Any challenge thereafter was legally impermissible,” the Bench observed.
The judges pointed out that:
- The State had not raised any objection while execution was ongoing.
- The delivery of possession was carried out in the presence of government officials.
- A memo filed earlier by the State had accepted the execution without objection.
The court also criticised the State for taking contradictory stands.
“The respondent cannot approbate and reprobate. Having accepted the delivery of possession, it was not open to them to challenge it later,” the Bench said.
Read Also:- UGC's 2026 Anti-Discrimination Rules Face Protest by Lawyers Near Allahabad High Court
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Orissa High Court’s 2010 judgment
- Quashed the civil court’s 2007 order allowing the Section 47 application
- Restored the execution proceedings as final and valid
- Held that the application under Section 47 CPC was not maintainable
The court concluded that if the State had any grievance, it should have challenged the execution order at the appropriate time, not after its completion.
“No costs were awarded,” the Bench added while disposing of the appeal.
Case Title: Ananda Chandra Panda (Dead) Through LRs vs The Collector, Keonjhar & Another
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1920 of 2011
Decision Date: January 22, 2026
