In this batch of civil appeals arising from concurrent legal battles across both the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court addressed a complex scramble for possession of agricultural land measuring roughly 18 acres in Sanathal village, Gujarat. The dispute stemmed from a consent decree for specific performance passed by the Bombay High Court in 2016, subsequent execution proceedings involving a court receiver, and independent tenancy claims asserted by the appellants under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, ruling that the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench had traversed beyond the scope of the appeal by prematurely dismissing the appellants’ underlying interim application, which the Supreme Court ordered to be restored for a proper hearing. Concurrently, to manage competing claims of possession and status quo orders in Gujarat, the Court modified the Gujarat High Court orders to appoint an Advocate Receiver for the administration and supervision of the suit property pending final adjudication of the pending Special Civil Applications.
- Scope of Appellate Review: An appellate or revisional court exceeds its jurisdiction when it completely dismisses or disposes of a primary interlocutory application pending before a lower forum without letting the trial or single judge adjudicate upon it on its merits.
- Receiver Continuity vs. New Appointment: A subsequent decree for specific performance does not automatically appoint a new court receiver for specific lands if a court receiver was already operating under a prior, long-standing decree involving the same estate.
- Management of Competing Possession Claims: In multi-forum litigation involving rival claims of tenancy protection and decree execution over agricultural land, the appointment of an independent Advocate Receiver helps safeguard the property and prevents interim exploitation pending the final outcome of civil suits.
- Preservation of Alternative Remedies: Statutory rights and alternative legal remedies—such as tenancy claims under state agricultural land acts or independent civil suits—must remain open and unprejudiced by summary observations made during execution appeals.
