As per case facts, two Writ Petitions challenged a Tribunal's order evicting petitioners and restoring possession to private respondents, despite a final civil court decree in petitioners' favor declaring title ... and possession. The Tribunal had ignored this decree, citing lack of execution. The petitioners argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to disregard a binding civil court decree or to order eviction for subsequent dispossession of 'patta' holders. The question arose whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the civil court's decree and if it had authority to direct such eviction. Finally, the court held the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction. It affirmed that an unchallenged civil court decree is binding and found no provision empowering the Tribunal or Revenue Officer to order eviction for subsequent 'patta' holder dispossession, distinguishing it from initial possession after settlement annulment. Thus, the Tribunal's judgment was deemed unlawful.