The Allahabad High Court has refused to let the State of Uttar Pradesh reopen, as collusive, a 1977 decree for ejectment, rent and damages that was maintained in appeal, second appeal and before the Supreme Court, holding that the State contested the suits at every stage.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has held that decrees passed against the State of Uttar Pradesh in two suits filed by landowners in 1972, and affirmed in the higher courts, are not collusive and have binding effect, as the State had filed a written statement, led evidence and argued at every stage. The Court set aside a revisional order that had reopened the matter and directed the executing court to decide the pending execution within three months [Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and Others v. State of U.P.].
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai heard five petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution together: two by the landowners and three by the State. The Court decided the objection to execution and expressed no view on any matter beyond what the record before it showed.
The Dispute
The case concerns plots in Village Meerapur Danda, Hamirpur, next to the Collector’s bungalow. The landowners’ predecessors were recorded as zamindars and the State as an occupancy tenant, and the plots were let out for the beautification of the bungalow. In 1972 the landowners sued for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, alleging breach of the lease. Both suits were decreed on December 19, 1977. The first appeals were dismissed in 1980 and the second appeals in 1982, and the decrees were maintained up to the Supreme Court.
In 1993 the State filed two suits seeking a declaration and cancellation of the decree. The plaints were rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in revision in 2002, and the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s special leave petitions in 2003. In execution, the executing court ordered attachment of the District Magistrate’s car and office furniture. In 2011 a revisional court allowed the State’s revisions and remanded the matter to the trial court, which led to the present petitions.
What Each Side Argued
Senior Counsel Ashish Kumar Singh, for the landowners, argued that the plea of fraud and collusion had already been decided against the State and confirmed up to the Supreme Court, that Section 44 of the Evidence Act and Section 4-A of the Code did not apply, and that the 2011 revisional order was an abuse of process. Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, for the State, argued that the executing court wrongly refused leave to file supplementary objections under Section 47 of the Code, that the revisional court wrongly treated the fraud issue as closed because rejection of a plaint on a technical ground does not decide fraud on the merits, and that execution proceedings are a valid forum under Section 44 of the Evidence Act to show collusion.
Why The Court Rejected The Collusion Plea
The Court found that the State had been given full opportunity to file its written statement, lead evidence and argue at each stage, which meant the suits were contested and not decided behind its back. It noted that the 2002 revisional judgment, which rejected the State’s later suits, had said:
“There should be some end of the litigation.”
It also noted that the 1988 judgment of the High Court found the 1980 revenue entry change to have been made in bad faith and without natural justice. It held that the decrees and judgments in question are not collusive and have binding effect, and that an objection in execution that the affirmed decree was the result of collusion cannot be accepted. The State’s argument that the Supreme Court’s order of February 23, 2009 had been wrongly treated by the revisional court as obiter was recorded but not separately analysed.
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana High Court Seeks Status Report On ‘Anomaly’ In Muktsar Executing Court’s Order
Directions
The Court allowed the landowners’ petitions (Nos. 12514 and 12515 of 2023), set aside the revisional orders of April 20, 2011 and restored the trial court’s order of December 4, 2010. It dismissed the State’s three petitions (Nos. 12516 to 12518 of 2023). It directed that Suit No. 108 of 1991 be decided expeditiously, preferably within four months, and that the executing court decide the pending execution arising from the 1972 suits within three months of production of a certified copy of the order. There was no order as to costs.
Case Details: Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and Others v. State of U.P., Matters under Article 227 Nos. 12514 to 12518 of 2023. Bench: Justice Chandra Kumar Rai. Reserved on July 7, 2026; pronounced on October 5, 2026.
Appearances: Senior Counsel Ashish Kumar Singh, assisted by Imran Syed, for the landowners; Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, assisted by Standing Counsel Madan Mohan, for the State of U.P.