SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mohammad Yusuf - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 265 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
T.A. Khan, Advocate, Mohd. Shafy, Advocate, J.S. Bisht, Advocate

The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and can be enforced through civil suits or other legal remedies.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Right to Property - Article 300A of the Constitution of India - [Article 300A] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: Article 300A, Section 17(3-A), Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] - The court discussed the petitioner's right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the relevant legal provisions. It highlighted the principles laid down in various cases, emphasizing that the right to property is a constitutional right and can be enforced through civil suits or other legal remedies. The court concluded that the petitioner's attempt to enforce private rights through a writ petition was not maintainable.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed to be a co-owner of disputed land and sought writ orders to prevent construction and road development by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the State's actions violated Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's attempt to enforce private rights through a writ petition was not maintainable. It emphasized that the right to property is a constitutional right and can be enforced through civil suits or other legal remedies.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's attempt to enforce private rights through a writ petition was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right to property is a constitutional right and can be enforced through civil suits or other legal remedies. It highlighted the principles laid down in various cases, emphasizing that the petitioner's attempt to enforce private rights through a writ petition was not maintainable.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as the court did not find any reason to entertain the petition.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no.1 to 6 not to permit the respondents no.7 to 12 to construct any building or road or drains on the lands bearing khasra 18 min, 23, min and 25 min total measuring about 0.226 hectare of village Lakshmipur Patti, Tehsil Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar.

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents no.1 to 6 not to construct themselves or through contractor, any road or drains or any other development activity on the land bearing khasra 18 min, 23, min and 25 min total measuring about 0.226 hectare of village Lakshmipur Patti, Tehsil Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar.

(iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents no.13 to 15 to provide proper protection to the petitioner and to comply with the directions which may be issued by this Hon'ble Court in the present writ petition.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

(v) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.'

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is a case of the petitioner that he is co-owner of the land in question ('the disputed land'). A partition suit is already pending. The shares of the parties are yet to be determined. But, the private respondents, in connivance with the Government Authorities, are raising construction on the disputed land and the State Authorities are constructing a road on the disputed land without adopting the due procedure.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know as to how a writ could be entertained for ventilating private rights of the parties?

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the State had no authority to construct on the private land of the petitioner. It is violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel also raised the following points:-

(i) The State has yet not acquired the land.

(ii) The State could have acquired the land in accordance with law.

(iii) The shares of the parties are yet to be determined in a partition suit.

6. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2021) 6 SCC 771, Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited, (2011) 9 SCC 354, K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another Vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1, and B.K. Ravichandra and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 950.

7. In the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 27.1 observed that 'the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.'

8. In the case of Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 79 discussed the impact of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India as hereunder:-

'79. If I read, Section 17(3-A) as I must, consistently with the constitutional doctrine of due process as articulated in the expression 'authority of law' under Article 300-A which constitutionally protects deprivation of a right to property, save by authority of law, the conclusion in my judgment is inescapable that the requirement of Section 17(3-A) constitutes the authority of law within the meaning of Article 300-A. Therefore, in the context of aforesaid statutory dispensation and constitutional provision, the debate whether the provision of Section 17(3-A) is mandatory or directory does not present much difficulty for the reasons discussed above and also for the following reasons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top