Supreme Court Restores Farmers’ Objections to Execution of Consent Decree, Finds Bombay High Court Exceeded Appellate Scope; Appoints Receiver Amid Competing Land Possession Claims
Supreme Court Revives Farmers’ Challenge to Execution of Consent Decree; Holds Bombay High Court Exceeded Appeal Scope and Orders Receiver for Disputed Agricultural Land
Facts
The dispute concerns approximately 18 acres and 10 gunthas of agricultural land at Sanathal village, Sanand Taluka, Ahmedabad, comprising Block Nos. 850P, 853 and 859P.
The legal heirs of Hirabai Desai executed an MoU dated 30 October 2013 and a supplementary MoU dated 15 April 2015 agreeing to transfer the land to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondents instituted Suit No. 955 of 2015 for specific performance, culminating in a consent decree dated 6 May 2016 passed by the Bombay High Court. A Court Receiver was appointed and police assistance was subsequently granted.
During execution of the consent decree, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sought vacant possession. By order dated 11 March 2022, the Bombay High Court directed delivery of vacant possession. The appellants thereafter filed I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 seeking recall of that order and raising objections to execution.
The Single Judge refused interim protection. In appeal, the Bombay High Court Division Bench not only dismissed the appeal but also withdrew and disposed of the appellants’ pending recall application itself, observing that their claim as agricultural tenants could be pursued before an appropriate forum.
Meanwhile, the appellants claimed that they had been declared “protected tenants” under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on 3 June 2024. Proceedings challenging that position were instituted before the Gujarat High Court, which ordered maintenance of status quo and permitted harvesting of standing crops. The appellants’ Letters Patent Appeals were subsequently dismissed.
Thus, interconnected proceedings arising from the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts reached the Supreme Court.
Issues
The principal questions before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the Bombay High Court Division Bench, while deciding an appeal arising from refusal of interim protection, could travel beyond the scope of that appeal and finally dispose of the appellants’ pending recall/objection application before the Single Judge.
- Whether the appellants were entitled to have their objections to execution of the consent decree independently adjudicated in accordance with law.
- How possession and administration of the disputed agricultural land should be protected pending adjudication of the proceedings before the Gujarat High Court, particularly in view of the competing claims to possession and protected tenancy.
The Supreme Court deliberately refrained from deciding the substantive merits of the competing claims because the recall application and Special Civil Applications were to remain for determination before the respective High Courts.
Petitioner’s/Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that the scope of their appeal before the Bombay High Court was limited and that the Division Bench could not take up and finally dispose of I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022, which was pending before the Single Judge.
They contended that, as objectors to the ongoing execution proceedings, they were entitled to participate in the inquiry and raise all objections available to them in law against execution and delivery of possession.
Regarding the Gujarat proceedings, the appellants relied upon the order dated 3 June 2024 and contended that their possession stood protected. According to them, once status quo had been granted, the subsequent arrangement permitting harvesting of standing crops was improper.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that the challenge arising from the Bombay proceedings had substantially become academic because the appellants had subsequently instituted Civil Suit No. 724 of 2025.
They maintained that the orders under challenge were legally sustainable and that the appellants’ asserted possession was inconsistent with the possession-delivery proceedings already initiated through the Court Receiver in execution of the consent decree.
Accordingly, the respondents contended that the appellants could not be permitted to continue enjoying or controlling the disputed property contrary to the execution proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court approached the controversy principally through the limits of appellate jurisdiction and procedural fairness, rather than adjudicating the underlying title or tenancy controversy.
An appellate court must confine itself to the subject matter properly arising in the appeal before it. Where a substantive application remains pending before the Single Judge for inquiry and adjudication, an appellate court dealing with an interlocutory order cannot ordinarily enlarge the controversy and finally determine that independent proceeding without giving it the adjudicatory process contemplated by law.
After examining the pleadings and the nature of the Bombay High Court’s orders dated 4 April 2022 and 28 June 2022, the Supreme Court expressly found that the Division Bench had “traversed beyond the scope” of the appeal before it.
The Court therefore restored the appellants’ substantive procedural opportunity to have their objections adjudicated rather than itself deciding whether those objections would ultimately succeed.
On the possession dispute arising in Gujarat, the Supreme Court adopted a preservative approach. Since there was a “scramble for possession” and sharply divergent claims, the Court considered neutral administration of the property through an Advocate Receiver preferable to allowing either side’s possession claim to effectively determine the dispute pending adjudication.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not cite or analyse any earlier Supreme Court or High Court precedent. Its determination is based upon the procedural history, pleadings, scope of the appeal before the Bombay High Court and the necessity of preserving the disputed property pending adjudication.
Accordingly, no precedent should be attributed to the judgment beyond what appears in the decision itself.
The important principle emerging from the decision is that an appellate court should not travel beyond the controversy properly before it and extinguish a substantive pending proceeding that requires independent adjudication.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court found that the Bombay High Court Division Bench exceeded the permissible scope of the appeal when it proceeded to dispose of I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022, despite that application being pending before the Single Judge.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the relevant findings in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Bombay High Court’s order dated 28 June 2022 and restored I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 to the file for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the appellants were protected tenants, whether their objections to the consent decree were ultimately sustainable, or which party had the superior right to possession. Those questions were left open for adjudication in the pending proceedings.
Regarding the Gujarat proceedings, the Court acknowledged the competing possession claims and considered neutral supervision necessary. It therefore modified the Gujarat High Court orders and requested the Single Judge to appoint an Advocate Receiver and determine the Receiver’s fees for administration and supervision of the disputed property.
The Receiver’s appointment was expressly made subject to the final outcome of the pending Special Civil Applications, so that the arrangement would ultimately benefit whichever party succeeded.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court partly interfered with the Bombay High Court proceedings, holding that its Division Bench had exceeded the scope of the appeal by disposing of the appellants’ pending objection/recall application.
It therefore restored I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 for adjudication in accordance with law.
In the Gujarat proceedings, instead of deciding the disputed possession and protected-tenancy claims, the Supreme Court modified the interim arrangement and directed appointment of an Advocate Receiver to administer and supervise the approximately 18-acre disputed property until the pending proceedings are finally decided.
The Civil Appeals were accordingly disposed of, along with all pending applications.
Case Details
Case: Parbatsinh Dolatsang Dodiya & Others v. Rameshbhai Harjibhai Makwana & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 10586–10588 of 2026, with Civil Appeal Nos. 10667–10668 of 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 898
Judge: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date: 20 August 2026
Result: Appeals disposed of; Bombay High Court’s findings exceeding appellate scope partly set aside; appellants’ recall/objection application restored; Gujarat High Court interim orders modified with direction to appoint an Advocate Receiver pending final adjudication.
