1. Land ownership dispute — conflicting declarations under Salsette Estate Act and MLR Code — ex-parte review order — challenge via Public Interest Litigation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
N.V. Ramana, CJI., A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli, JJ.
ESTEEM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
CHETAN KAMBLE & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 10425 & 10764 of 2010
Decided on : 28-02-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Public Interest Litigation – Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine bonafides of parties – It is usually on pleadings that Court should take a prima facie view on bonafides of party.
(2) Public Interest Litigation cannot be resorted to for settling title disputes.
(1) Public Interest Litigation – Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine bonafides of parties – It is usually on pleadings that Court should take a prima facie view on bonafides of party.
(2) Public Interest Litigation cannot be resorted to for settling title disputes.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Public Interest Litigation – Public Interest Litigation is not a new concept in this Court – Although jurisprudence in this regard has matured, many claims filed in Courts are sometimes immature – Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening docket of both this Court and High Courts – Noble intentions behind expanding Court’s jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed – One of measures this Court can adopt to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi – Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine bonafides of parties – It is usually on pleadings that Court should take a prima facie view on bonafides of party – If Court concludes that litigation was initiated under shadow of reasonable suspicion, then Court may decline to entertain claims on merits – In these cases, Courts have multiple options such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if cause espoused in the case requires immediate attention of Court. (Paras 21 and 22)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Public Interest Litigation – Matter concerning ownership of land – Bonafides of respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not considered in a proper perspective by High Court – PIL petitioners had no reason to file a public interest litigation when subject matter was evidently a title claim between a private party and State – State Government itself concedes title to appellants herein and has filed affidavits to such effect – It is not appropriate for High Court to have allowed respondent nos. 1 and 2 to have agitated issues concerning title and ownership in a public interest litigation – Conduct and history of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is also not inspiring for continuing this unnecessary litigation – Civil Appeals allowed with costs. (Paras 25, 26, 33 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been preferred against judgment dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Bombay High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. Matter pertains to rights and ownership over subject land admeasuring 5 acres and 20 gunthas in CTS No. 229 (‘subject land’). The dispute regarding title was originally between one Gonsalves family (appellants in C.A. No.10764 of 2010) and the State of Maharashtra (respondent no.3). Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. (appellant in C.A. No.10425 of 2010) is the successor-in-interest to Gonsalves family.
Findings of Court:
State has clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants herein. In this light, institution of public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process which cannot be allowed in the facts and circumstance so narrated.
Result : Civil Appeals allowed with costs.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - PIL is a summary jurisdiction with limited powers to examine bonafides; courts must be cautious of frivolous petitions (!) (!) . - PIL cannot be resorted to for settling title disputes between private parties and the State (!) . - The bonafides of respondents were not properly considered by the High Court in allowing the PIL (!) . - A third party without direct interest cannot challenge a quasi-judicial order on title through PIL (!) (!) . - Orders passed without providing an adequate hearing under Section 258 are invalid (!) (!) . - The subject land was privately owned, and public interest litigation was an abuse of process (!) (!) . - The impugned order restoring the earlier review was cancelled, and the original order from 11.10.1995 was re-established (!) (!) . - Civil Appeals are allowed with costs, and pending applications are disposed of accordingly (!) .
What is the scope of jurisdiction for Public Interest Litigation in matters concerning title disputes?
Whether a third party has locus standi to challenge a quasi-judicial order on title through a PIL?
Whether a revenue order passed without an adequate hearing is legally valid?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mukul Rohatgi, Mahesh Agarwal, Mohammed Himayatullah, Rutuja Patil, Nishant Rao, E. C. Agrawala, Anshuman Srivastava, Shubham Agarwal, Arpit Rawat, Advocates
for the Respondent:Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Aditya Narayan Das, Rudreshwar Singh, Mukul Rohatgi, Mahesh Agarwal, Mohammed Himayatullah, Rutuja Patil, Nishant Rao, E. C. Agrawala, Anshuman Srivastava, Shubham Agarwal, Arpit Rawat, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Shwetal Shepal, Advocates
For the Appellant :Mukul Rohatgi, Mahesh Agarwal, Mohammed Himayatullah, Rutuja Patil, Nishant Rao, E. C. Agrawala, Anshuman Srivastava, Shubham Agarwal, Arpit Rawat, Advocates
for the Respondent:Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Aditya Narayan Das, Rudreshwar Singh, Mukul Rohatgi, Mahesh Agarwal, Mohammed Himayatullah, Rutuja Patil, Nishant Rao, E. C. Agrawala, Anshuman Srivastava, Shubham Agarwal, Arpit Rawat, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Shwetal Shepal, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenge PIL maintainability in private title disputes and the legality of the ex-parte order; Respondents argue public revenue loss justifies PIL. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. PIL is an abuse of process in private title disputes where the State concedes ownership; ex-parte orders violating natural justice and statutory notice requirements are void. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 34 )
4. Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in private title disputes; quasi-judicial orders passed without mandatory statutory notice to affected parties violate principles of natural justice. (Para 25 , 28 , 29 , 34 )
5. Appeals allowed with costs; High Court order set aside; Revenue Minister's order restoring private ownership upheld. (Para 35 , 36 )
6. Can a Public Interest Litigation be maintained to challenge a quasi-judicial order regarding a title dispute between a private party and the State?
No. The court held that PIL is not maintainable in a title claim between a private party and the State, especially when the State concedes the title, as such litigation constitutes an abuse of process. (Para 25 , 33 , 34 )
7. What is the effect of passing a review order without providing notice to the affected party under Section 258 of the MLR Code?
Such an order is void as it violates the principles of natural justice and the specific statutory requirement under Section 258(1)(ii) of the MLR Code, which mandates notice to parties interested before an order is varied or reversed. (Para 28 , 29 )
8. How should courts approach the credentials and bona fides of a petitioner filing a Public Interest Litigation?
Courts must be cautious and prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner to ensure the PIL is genuine, aimed at redressing public harm, and not filed for personal gain or oblique motives. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT
N. V. RAMANA, CJI.
The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Bombay High Court in a Public Interest Litigation, being PIL No. 47 of 2008.
2. The matter pertains to rights and ownership over the subject land admeasuring 5 acres and 20 gunthas in CTSNo. 229 (in short 'subject land'). The dispute regarding title was originally between one Gonsalves family (appellants in C.A. No. 10764 of 2010) and the State of Maharashtra (respondent no. 3). Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. (appellant in C.A. No. 10425 of 2010) is the successor-in-interest to the Gonsalves family.
3. Before we analyze the case, the facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows: From 1819 onwards, the land belonged to the Khot of Kurla, as per a grant made to them by the East India Company under a Deed. The appellants' purported predecessor-in-interest became the absolute owners of the subject land by way of a Deed of Exchange dated 12.03.1894, wherein the title of the land vested in the ancestors of the Gonsalves family.
4. On 25.11.1953, in an enquiry under the Salsette Estate (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 for all the land belonging to the Khot, the land in question was declared as Government land. The successors of the Khot (viz. A.H. Wadia Trust) preferred Civil Suit No. 921 of 1954 against such finding, which was subsequently settled by a Consent Decree dated 02.05.1963. The Consent Decree affirmed the findings in favour of the State under the Salsette Estates Act. It must be noted that the Gonsalves family were not a party to the decree or the proceedings.
5. In 1962, another enquiry ('City Survey enquiry') was conducted under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ('MLR Code') for the entire Mumbai Suburban District. Vide order dated 27.02.1969, the Enquiry Officer held that the land vests in the State Government. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 30.04.1970.
6. The Gonsalves family preferred Civil Suit No. 698 of 1971, stating that the orders passed in the City Survey enquiry were void and illegal, and that the Consent Decree dated 02.05.1963 was not binding on them. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 20(2) of the MLR Code were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer and a fresh enquiry was conducted. In light of the aforesaid enquiry under Section 20(2) of the MLR Code, Civil Suit No. 698 of 1971 became redundant.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated 07.11.1988, declared the subject land as State land. This was confirmed in appeal by both, the Additional Collector on 19.12.1989 and the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division on 30.08.1991.
8. Against the said order of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, the Gonsalves Family preferred a Revision Application before the Revenue Minister. Vide order dated 11.10.1995, the Revenue Minister allowed the Gonsalves family's revision application and held that they were the absolute owners of the subject land on the basis of the 1894 Deed of Exchange. The Revenue Minister concluded that occasion to hold the 1951 enquiry under the Salsette Estates Act did not arise as the land in question had become private land. It was also observed that the land which vested in the State was some other land, not the subject land. It may be relevant to note certain observations made in the aforesaid order, which read as under:
"22. On going through the evidence and documentary record in particular I am convinced that Shri Gonsalves & Others have proved their possession on this land. Though Shri Gonsalves has not produced a copy of Deed of Exchange signed between him and Shri Wadiain 1894, the same deed was accepted by the representative of Shri Wadia before the Lower Court. The Statement recorded before the lower courts clearly indicate the existence of deed of exchange of 1894.
23. The appellant have also proved that they are in correspondence with the Revenue Authority since 1943 requesting t
