Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ.
State Of U.P. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ehsan & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20137 OF 2023)
Decided On : 13-10-2023
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative remedy – Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction – More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and matter has remained pending for long – In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate writ petitioner to alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so – One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable Court to come to a definite conclusion. (Para 28)
(B) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 1- – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 4 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Possession of surplus land – Factum of possession is essentially a question of fact – Although there is no hard and fast rule that a question of fact cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction but, in the event of a serious dispute between parties on a question of fact, writ court ordinarily refrains from deciding it – More so, when writ petitioner has an alternative remedy where such disputed questions of fact can be decided authoritatively – In instant case, a serious dispute had arisen regarding taking of actual possession of surplus land – Ceiling Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code and any orders passed thereunder are subject to statutory appeal etc. – Suit may not lie to declare that surplus land, which has been notified as such under Section 10 (3) of Ceiling Act, 1976, is free from ceiling for failure to take actual possession prior to enforcement of Repeal Act, 1999 – However, where possession is stated to have been taken long ago and there is undue delay on part of landholder in approaching writ court, writ court may relegate writ petitioner to suit, if suit is otherwise maintainable – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and first respondent’s writ petition dismissed without prejudice to his right to institute suit. (Paras 23, 24, 26, 30 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 08.10.2018, passed in Writ C No. 21009 of 2012, by which writ petition of the first respondent was disposed of by declaring that the land in dispute shall continue to be in possession of original petitioner and would not be treated as surplus land as he is entitled to the benefits of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Direction was also issued to the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling) Saharanpur to ensure that name of the original petitioner is restored in revenue records.
Findings of Court:
High Court should have refrained from deciding the issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land prior to the cut off date specified in the Repeal Act, 1999. Instead, writ petitioner should have been relegated to a suit.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on writ jurisdiction, especially when petitions have been entertained and matter pending for long, requiring merits focus (!) (!) . - It addresses that where there is a serious dispute of fact on possession, writ courts may refrain and may relegate to a suit; the case holds that the writ court should have relegated the petitioner to a suit rather than decide the possession issue in writ jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) . - It clarifies that possession can be taken in various forms (physical, symbolic) and the relevance of the cut-off date under the Repeal Act for determining abatement of ceilings, with considerations about whether possession was taken before the cut-off date (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that the High Court should not decide disputed questions of fact where evidence is inconclusive and should favor merit-based resolution or suit if necessary (!) (!) . - It notes that writ petitions can be dismissed without prejudice to rights to institute a suit, preserving potential future relief (!) .
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court1[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] dated 08.10.2018, passed in Writ C No. 21009 of 2012, by which the writ petition of the first respondent2[The original petitioner] was disposed of by declaring that the land in dispute shall continue to be in possession of the original petitioner and would not be treated as surplus land as he is entitled to the benefits of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 19993[The Repeal Act, 1999]. In addition to the above, a direction was issued to the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling) Saharanpur4[The Competent Authority] to ensure that the name of the original petitioner is restored in the revenue records.
Facts/Pleadings
2. The original petitioner had land holding admeasuring 7499.20 square meter comprising plot nos.166, 177, 179 and 185 in village Panjaura Bairoon, Tehsil and District Saharanpur. With the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 19765[The Ceiling Act, 1976] coming into force, proceedings thereunder were initiated against the original petitioner giving rise to Case No. 2186 of 1976. In these proceedings, vide order dated 26.11.1977, the Competent Authority declared 5499.20 square meter of land as surplus.
3. The aforesaid order dated 27.11.1977 was questioned before the High Court in the year 1986 through a writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.1.1986. The order dated 3.1.1986 is reproduced below:
“This Writ Petition is against the order of the Competent Authority, Saharanpur dated 26.11.1977- The contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is unenforceable. If the order is unenforceable, the petitioner can demonstrate before the relevant authority and if that authority decides against the petitioner, the petitioner can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. At this stage, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation in limine and it would be open to the petitioner to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution if his contention is not accepted hereafter.
A copy of this order may be given to the petitioner within 24 hours on receipt of usual charges.”
4. Taking advantage of the observations made by the High Court in its order dated 3.1.1986, the original petitioner filed objections before the Competent Authority, which were rejected, vide order dated 27.03.1987, while observing that, -- (a) 5499.29 square meter of land was declared surplus on 26.11.1977; (b) the notification under Section 10(1) was published on 09.1.1978; (c) the notification under Section 10(3) was made on 15.01.1979, (d) the appeal of the original petitioner before the District Judge was rejected on 12.07.1979; (e) the objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Competent Authority, on the ground that land is agricultural and outside the master plan, is unsustainable because, according to the report, it fell in a residential area within the purview of the Master Plan; (f) the possession of the surplus land had already been taken.
5. The aforesaid order dated 27.03.1987 was questioned before the High Court through writ petition No.9702 of 1987 wherein, on 20.08.1987, an interim order was passed in the following terms:
“Issue Notice.
In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land declared to be surplus with him.”
6. The said writ petition remained pending for over a decade and was decided on 28.02.2001, after the Repeal Act, 1999 was notified. The order dated 28.02.2001 is reproduced below:
“Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This petition related to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as repealed in 1999. In Pt. Madan Swarup Shrotiya, Public Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. & others J.T. 2000(3) SC 391 it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the possession has been
(1) Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction.(2) Factum of possession is essentially a question of fact – Although there is no hard and fast rule tha....
The court established that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act abate if possession is not taken before the Repeal Act, but claims can be dismissed on grounds of delay.
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
Timely objection is essential in ceiling proceedings; long delay in seeking judicial intervention leads to barring of relief due to laches, irrespective of alleged possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving possession for the purposes of the Repeal Act and the statutory bar on transfer created by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Re....
The State must prove actual physical possession of surplus land to assert rights under the Urban Land Ceiling Act; failure to do so results in the abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land if possession has been t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
