Ranjit Singh and Another Vs M/S Ardee Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Others

This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by the petitioners have been dismissed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, a perusal of the Local Commissioner’s report would show that a total land measuring 398 square yards is stated to be in excess possession of the petitioners which is required to be given. It is submitted that however no specific area is mentioned stating as to which part is to be handed over to the decree holders and to the judgment debtors No.2 to 4 from the entire area stated to be in possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the

¶18

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.06 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CR No.6210 of 2025 (O&M) 2

¶20

petitioners has further submitted that as per the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Executing Court, the area which is to be handed over by the petitioners to the decree holders (respondents No.1 to 10) is 251 square yards. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the petitioners be given an option to hand over the area measuring 251 square yards comprised in khasra No.672 to respondents No.1 to 10/decree holders out of the area which is in possession of the petitioners.

¶21

Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 10 has submitted that respondents No.1 to 10 have no objection in case option is given to the petitioners to hand over the area measuring 251 square yards comprised in khasra No.672 of their choice to the decree holders/respondents No.1 to 10 from the area which is held to be in possession of the petitioners but has submitted that the area of 251 square yards should be contiguous and should be one consolidated piece of land and in case there is any construction on the same, the same should be demolished.

¶22

A perusal of the order dated 01.09.2025 would further show that judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 have to be given possession of an area measuring 147 square yards from khasra No.672. from the land which is in possession of the present petitioners who represents judgment debtors No.5, 20 and 21.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the said aspect has submitted that since no execution has been filed on behalf of judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4, thus, the said issue be kept open.

¶24

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.06 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CR No.6210 of 2025 (O&M) 3

¶26

During the course of arguments, a very fair stand has been taken by the counsel for the petitioners as well as by the senior counsel for the contesting respondents No.1 to 10 and in view of the same, while upholding the impugned order, the present revision petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions:

¶27

(i) On 27.02.2026 at 11:00 AM, the petitioners or their authorized representatives as well as respondents No.1 to 10 or their authorized representatives would go to the spot. The Kanungo, Wazirabad, is also directed to be present there on the said date at the said time.

¶28

(ii) The petitioners or their authorized representatives at their option will offer 251 square yards of land from khasra No.672 to respondents No.1 to 10 which is in possession of the petitioners. The land so offered would be contiguous and one consolidated piece of land. The possession of the said land would be handed over to respondents No.1 to 10 or their authorized representatives in accordance with law.

¶29

(iii) The right of JD Nos.2 to 4 to take possession of land measuring 147 square yards from khasra No.672 from the petitioners in accordance with the order dated 01.09.2025 is kept open and it would be open to the parties concerned to raise all pleas regarding the same in accordance with law.

¶30

(iv) The parties are requested to amicably carry out the abovesaid exercise.

¶31

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶32

February 6^th, 2026		(VIKAS BAHL)
Puneet		JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes
Whether reportable	:	No

¶33

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.06 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ranjit Singh and Another v. M/S Ardee Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh and Another v. M/S Ardee Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu @ Sukhdev Vs Sunil and Others

Ambu Vs Surjit Singh

Ghanshyam Dass and Others Vs Nanu Mal and Others

Satpal Dhiman Vs Deepak Jain

Sarabjit Singh (Since Deceased) through Lr Vs Harmit Kaur and Others

Sumitra & Ors. Vs Ram Narain & Ors.