Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1754
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10732/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-09-2023
in WC No. 18913/2023 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad)
NEENA GULATI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VIKRAM SACHDEVA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.67092/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING and IA No.67091/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.67094/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
and IA No.67090/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 22-03-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
The rights of parties to a property that are being adjudicated in pending suits should not be interfered with by administrative orders.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to a dispute over a property, Bungalow No. 11, Edmonstan Road, Allahabad. The original owner of the property was Ratan Chandra Gulati, and the contesting parties are his family members. The petitioner, Vikas Sachdeva, had filed a writ petition (Writ-C No. 22688 of 2022) seeking a direction to the respondent to take a decision on the reference made to it regarding the conferment of freehold rights of the property. The High Court had noted that there were two pending suits between the rival claimants of the land and had listed the matter for further hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court stayed the impugned order dated 25.09.2023, which had directed the State to consider the representation filed by Smt. Vimala Sachdeva, the mother of the respondents, on the ground that the rights of the parties were being adjudicated in the pending Partition Suit No. 74/2004 and the Suit No. 1152 of 2013.
Issues: Whether the High Court should have passed the impugned order directing the State to consider the representation filed by Smt. Vimala Sachdeva, given that there were pending suits between the rival claimants of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the impugned order should not have been passed because the rights of the parties were being adjudicated in the pending suits and that it was not appropriate for the State to consider the representation filed by Smt. Vimala Sachdeva in such circumstances.
Final Decision: The High Court stayed the impugned order dated 25.09.2023.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The Counsel submits that matter pertains to the land encompassing the Bungalow No.11, Edmonstan Road, Allahabad. The original predecessor-in-interest thereof was one Ratan Chandra Gulati. The Contesting parties are the family members of the said Ratan Chandra Gulati.
4. Adverting to the impugned order dated 25.09.2023, the counsel would submit that although this was an innocuous order for disposal of the representation filed by Late Smt. Vimala Sachdeva (the mother of the two writ petitioners – Vikram Sachdeva and Vikas Sachdeva), the impugned order (25.09.2023) ought not to have been passed on account of the previous order recorded by the Division Bench on 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-20).
5. In that case i.e., the earlier Writ-C No.22688 of 2022 filed by Vikas Sachdeva, the High Court noted the following:-
- “Through this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent no.l to take a decision on the reference made to it by order of the second respondent dated 16.11.2017 in respect of conferment of freehold rights of a Nazul plot of land.
- The learned Standing Counsel, pursuant to the order dated 17.8.2022, has obtained written instructions as per which, there is a litigation pending between the rival claimants of the land in the Civil Court in two suits, namely, Suit No.74 of 2004 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad where the relief sought is of partition and Suit no.1152 of 2013, where the relief sought is to declare the freehold deed dated 31.3.2008 pertaining to Nazul Site No. 'U' Civil Station, Allahabad ineffective, inoperative, null and void upto the extent of 1/8th of the unpartitioned share of the plaintiff.
- The issue that arises for our consideration in this petition is whether once a freehold deed has been executed and registered, can it be cancelled by an administrative order, particularly, when Civil Suit in respect of rights of the claimants is pending in a civil court.
- If our answer to the issue is in the negative, then this petition may not be maintainable.
- To address the Court on the above issue the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to examine and study the law in this regard.
- List this matter on 17.11.2022.”
6. As can be appreciated, two suits are pending where the successors are litigating over the same property and that is why it is argued by Mr. Dave that the High in the subsequent proceedings i.e., Writ - C No.18913/2023, should not have passed the impugned order directing the State to consider the representation filed by Smt. Vimala Sachdeva, the mother of the respondents. This is because the rights of the parties are being adjudicated in the pending Partition Suit No.74/2004 and the Suit No.1152 of 2013.
7. Issue Notice, returnable in four weeks.
8. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 shall remain stayed.
