2006 Supreme(SC) 378

2006(3) Supreme 617
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority—Appellant
versus
Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2004
Decided on 24-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, Ravindra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : V.A. Bobde, Sr. Advocate, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Disputed questions of fact should not be gone into by High Court in writ proceedings.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 226 —Writ jurisdiction—Disputed question of facts—High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain petition merely because in considering petitioner’s right to relief question of fact may fall to be determined—However when complex questions of fact which may, for their determination require evidence to be taken, High Court should ordinarily decline to try the petition—Land belonging to respondent Society was acquired by State Govt. for planned development of industrial area—Policy decision taken by appellant that land equivalent to 40% of land holding of societies would be made available for allotment to members of societies whose land was acquired—Respondent society was allotted land equivalent to 40% of 292 bighas stated to have been acquired—Disputes raised by certain members of society who claimed that their names were not included in list forwarded to appellant—Inquiry by Additional Dist. Magistrate revealed that society had made gross misrepresentation that 292 bighas of its land had been acquired—Allotment of land in favour of society was cancelled—High Court allowed writ of society—Appeal—Disputed question of title of land acquired in the case was to be established in appropriate Court of law and writ petition was not proper remedy—High Courts findings that farmers had practiced fraud was without foundation since farmers were not party in writ petition—Highly disputed questions of fact were involved—Impugned judgment could not be sustained.

       Held : A High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition merely because in considering petitioner’s right to relief question of fact may fall to be determined as pointed out in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee (AIR 1970 SC 802). In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues of law and fact. Where, however, the petition raises complex question of fact, the Court should not entertain the petition. In Mahanta Moti Das v. S.P. Sahid (AIR 1959 SC 942) the High Court refused to go into the question as to whether Trusts were public or private trusts as the question had involved investigation of complicated facts and recording of evidence. The view was upheld. Thus, if there is a question on which there is a serious dispute which cannot be satisfactorily decided without taking evidence, it should not be decided in a writ proceeding (See Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882). If disputed questions of fact arise and the High Court is of the view that those may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court has jurisdiction to refuse to try those questions and relegate the party to his normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit. In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. When the petition raises complex questions of fact which may, for their determination, require oral evidence to be taken and on that account the High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court should ordinarily decline to try the petition. Thus, a High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right, question of fact may fall to be determined. Ultimately, the question is one of discretion which is to be exercised in conformity with judicial principles.(Paras 12 to 14)

       Though it is claimed by the respondent that there was no dispute that 292 bighas of land had been acquired by the Society, on verification of records the position appears to be entirely different. It has been all through the stand of appellant that the Society had misrepresented to be the owner of 292 bighas of land. This is a disputed question of title which was to be established in an appropriate court of law and the writ petition was not the proper remedy. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the High Court’s order practically renders the proceedings before the Board of Revenue redundant. Findings recorded about the merits of the proceedings before the Board of Revenue when the State was not a party in the writ petition is an impermissible course adopted by the High Court. Even otherwise, the finding that farmers have practiced fraud is without any foundation since farmers were not parties in the writ petition. The appellant’s effort was to verify genuineness of the members who were claimed by the Society to be its genuine members. Interestingly at the initial stage the list was verified by Sh. Balbir Singh who undisputedly was President of the respondent-Society . In spite of several opportunities the details regarding membership were not furnished. Obviously it cannot be said that the appellant was bound to allot land, even if the membership was not established and it was established that large number of people were not genuine members. Allotment in the manner desired by the respondent-Society would be against the very purpose of allotment flowing from the scheme in question. In any event highly disputed questions of fact were involved.(Para 11)

       The High Court entertained the writ petition on the ground that the present appellant by acting wholly arbitrarily and illegally had discrimination against the writ petitioner. These conclusions were based on no material. On the contrary, the factual scenario as described above goes to show that the respondent-Society was not entitled to maintain a writ petition. Further there was no claim for interest made in the writ petition but the High Court granted interest. Looked at any angle the High Court’s order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.(Para 15)