Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. AND K. K. LAHOTI, J.
ASSOCIATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF MHOW
VS.
UNION OF INDIA
W. P. No. 3826 of 2008
Decided On: SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
The petitioner association, representing civilian residents of Mhow, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the notices issued by the Union of India for resumption of land and bungalows in Mhow under their occupation. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, including the argument that it was not a genuine public interest litigation (PIL) but an attempt to serve the self-interest of certain office bearers and members of the association. The Court, however, held that the writ petition was a representative action on behalf of numerous persons having the same interest and could be categorized as a PIL. The Court also rejected the contention that the conduct of the petitioner was such that the writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold. The Court further held that the High Court could decide the disputes raised in the writ petition on the basis of interpretation of Article 295 of the Constitution, the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, without going into any factual disputes. The Court also held that Article 131 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to decide disputes between the Government of India and a State, was not applicable in this case as one of the parties to the dispute was a private party. Finally, the Court held that Article 363 of the Constitution, which bars interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. with Rulers of Indian States, was not attracted to the facts of the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner association, representing civilian residents of Mhow, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the notices issued by the Union of India for resumption of land and bungalows in Mhow under their occupation. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, including the argument that it was not a genuine public interest litigation (PIL) but an attempt to serve the self-interest of certain office bearers and members of the association.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petition was a representative action on behalf of numerous persons having the same interest and could be categorized as a PIL. The Court also rejected the contention that the conduct of the petitioner was such that the writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold. The Court further held that the High Court could decide the disputes raised in the writ petition on the basis of interpretation of Article 295 of the Constitution, the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, without going into any factual disputes. The Court also held that Article 131 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to decide disputes between the Government of India and a State, was not applicable in this case as one of the parties to the dispute was a private party. Finally, the Court held that Article 363 of the Constitution, which bars interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. with Rulers of Indian States, was not attracted to the facts of the present case.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable as a public interest litigation (PIL). 2. Whether the conduct of the petitioner was such that the writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold. 3. Whether the High Court could decide the disputes raised in the writ petition on the basis of interpretation of Article 295 of the Constitution, the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, without going into any factual disputes. 4. Whether Article 131 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to decide disputes between the Government of India and a State, was applicable in this case. 5. Whether Article 363 of the Constitution, which bars interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. with Rulers of Indian States, was attracted to the facts of the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition can be categorized as a PIL if it is a representative action on behalf of numerous persons having the same interest. 2. The conduct of the petitioner will not lead to dismissal of the writ petition at the threshold unless it is found that the petitioner has intentionally suppressed material facts to mislead the Court. 3. The High Court can decide disputes raised in a writ petition on the basis of interpretation of relevant laws and provisions without going into factual disputes, provided that the facts are not disputed. 4. Article 131 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to decide disputes between the Government of India and a State, is not applicable in cases where one of the parties to the dispute is a private party. 5. Article 363 of the Constitution, which bars interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. with Rulers of Indian States, is not attracted to cases where the treaty, agreement, etc. in question has not been continued in operation after the commencement of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable as a PIL and that the High Court could decide the disputes raised in the writ petition on the basis of interpretation of relevant laws and provisions without going into factual disputes. The Court also held that Article 131 and Article 363 of the Constitution were not applicable in this case.
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is an association of the residents of Mhow, a cantonment near Indore in Madhya Pradesh, and is registered as a Society under the madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran adhiniyam, 1973 and has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate reliefs.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for deciding this writ petition briefly are that Mhow originally was part of the Indian State of Maharaja of holkar. In 1818, Maharaja of Holkar entered into the Treaty of Mandsaur and under Article VII of the Treaty of Mandsaur, the britishers bound themselves to support a field force to maintain the internal tranquillity of the territories of Maharaja Holkar, and to defend the territories from foreign enemies and Maharaja Holkar agreed to provide some place of security where the British forces would be stationed and the stores would be deposited. Pursuant to the Article VII of the treaty of Mandsaur, Mhow came to be occupied by the British forces and the stores. In 1836, by Order No. 179 the Governor general of India in Council made regulations regarding houses and premises located in the military cantonment including the cantonment of Mhow. Thereafter, in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, his Majesty made the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction)Order in Council, 1937 and provided in clause 2 thereof that from the commencement of the Government of India Act, 1935, the powers so far as they are connected with the exercise of the function of the Crown in its relations with Indian States, will be powers of his Majesty's representative for the exercise of those functions of the Crown, and he may delegate those powers to such extent and in such manner as he thinks fit. The Crown's representative in exercise of such powers conferred by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction)Order in Council, 1937, then made the Central India Administered Areas (Application of Laws) Order, 1937 and included the cantonment of Mhow in the "administered areas" and applied the Cantonments Act, 1924, to the Cantonment of Mhow. On the eve of independence, however, a notification dated 9th August, 1947, was issued by the Crown representative stating that with effect from 14-8-1947 the jurisdiction over the areas known as "mhow Cantonment" be restored to the Maharaja Holkar of Indore and cancelled all notifications issued under the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in council, 1937. Simultaneously, a notification dated 14-8-1947 was issued by the Government of the Maharaja Holkar, Foreign Department, saying that the Crown Representative has been pleased to retrocede to the maharaja Holkar with effect from 14-8-1947, the jurisdiction exercised by him in the area then comprising the Cantonment of Mhow, in 1947, the Maharaja of Holkar signed the instrument of accession acceding to the Dominion of India and in 1948 the rulers of gwalior, Indore and certain other States in central India signed a covenant for the formation of Madhya Bharat. Thereafter, the constitution of India was adopted on 26-1-1950 and under Article 1 (1) read with Schedule I of the Constitution, Madhya Bharat was included in India as a Union of States.
( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, in the Mhow Cantonment area, several bungalows along with the adjoining lands were given by the authorities of Mhow Cantonment to different civilians for occupation and the civilians occupied the bungalows and the adjoining lands. In 1970 and thereafter, 63 notices were issued by the Defence Estate Officer, Mhow, to different civilians who were in occupation of bungalows and the land for resumption and the resumption notices were challenged in different proceedings in Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971 and in civil suits. Appeals were also filed against the orders passed by the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have taken
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
