Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Rajesh Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Govenment Boys Senior Secondary School No. 2 - Respondent
LPA 38 of 2024 & CM APPL. 1859 of 2024
Decided On : 11-01-2024
Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal with Mr. Gaurav Deep Bahl, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel, Civil, GNCTD with Mr. Arun Panwar, Mr. Pradyumn Rao, Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Mr. Kartik Sharma, Ms. Prashansa Sharma, Mr. Rishabh Srivastava and Ms. Nikita Vir, Advocates, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of property disputes or disputes relating to title. Determination of the claim of title and identification of the location of the subject land is necessary before any order for possession can be passed.
Headnote:
Letters Patent Act - Writ Petition - 1865, 1966 - The judgment discusses the dismissal of a writ petition seeking recovery of possession of a disputed land. The court held that the Appellant must file a substantive suit to declare his title before seeking possession. The judgment also references the need for determination of the claim of title and identification of the location of the subject land before any order for possession can be passed.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant filed a writ petition seeking possession of a disputed land based on a judgment acquitting him of criminal trespass. The Respondent school disputed the Appellant's title and possession of the land, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellant must file a substantive suit to declare his title before seeking possession of the disputed land. The court also noted that the identification of the location of the subject land is a disputed fact and an issue arising for adjudication between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellant could seek recovery of possession of the disputed land through a writ petition without first obtaining a declaration of his title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of property disputes or disputes relating to title. It emphasized the need for determination of the claim of title and identification of the location of the subject land before any order for possession can be passed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was advised to file a civil suit to determine his title in the disputed land before seeking recovery of possession.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1865 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 impugning the judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 14354 of 2023 (`writ petition') titled as `Rajesh Sharma v. Government Boys' Senior Secondary School No. 2, Janakpuri', whereby the writ petition has been dismissed with the observation that the Appellant has to avail the remedy by filing a civil suit for declaration of his title before seeking recovery of possession.
1.1. The Appellant herein filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the Respondent school to vacate the subject land and handover the possession to the Appellant.
1.2. The facts of the case as stated by the Appellant are that he purchased a plot bearing no. 2 admeasuring 216.75 sq. yds. falling in Khasra No. 268/2 in revenue estate of erstwhile village Nangal Raya (`subject land'), by a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2006. It is stated that after the purchase of said plot, the Appellant took physical possession and constructed a boundary wall thereon.
1.3. Thereafter, on 05.07.2007 a police complaint was filed by the erstwhile vice-principal of the Respondent school against the Appellant alleging encroachment (with respect to the subject land) which led to registration of FIR No. 171/2007 dated 05.07.2007 at Police Station Mayapuri for offences under Sections 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
1.4. After trial, the Metropolitan Magistrate (`learned MM') vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal trespass against the accused (i.e., the Appellant herein) beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted the Appellant.
1.5. The learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant was acquitted as the Respondent school during criminal trial failed to prove that the title or possession in the subject land lawfully vests with the school. It is stated that after his acquittal, the Appellant reasonably expected the Respondent school to suo-moto vacate the plot and handover the possession to him. It is stated that the Appellant also issued a legal notice dated 04.09.2023 to the Respondent school for handing over the peaceful possession. It is further stated that the Respondent failed to comply with the said legal notice and in these circumstances the Appellant filed the writ petition (under consideration) on 01.11.2023.
2. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2023 has dismissed the writ petition after returning a finding that in the facts of this case since the Appellant is seeking recovery of possession of the subject land on the basis of disputed title, he would have to file a substantive suit to get his title declared before the civil court and seek possession of the plot in question.
3. The learned counsel for the Appellant states that in view of the judgment of the learned MM dated 30.01.2017, the issue of absence of title of Respondent school in the subject land stands determined. He states that it is therefore, obvious that the sale deed 30.01.2006 relied upon by the Appellant is genuine and therefore, the Respondent school ought to be directed to handover possession of the subject land. He states that the Respondent school is entitled to remain in possession of land falling in Khasra No.270/1 whereas the subject land falls in Khasra No. 268/2. He states therefore, the Respondent school has no right to continue with possession of the subject land and this issue can be decided in writ proceedings.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Appellant's title in the subject land is disputed. He states that the Respondent school has always been in possession of the subject land and the action of the Appellant in 2007 of constructing a boundary wall was illegal. He states that the Respondent school is in rightful possession of the subject land and the writ p
