No Writ Petition can be Entertained for Issuance of any Writ against any Private Individual [SC JUDGMENT]
Constitution of India - Article 226 and 227 - A dispute inter se
private parties of the nature could not be allowed to be raised in the writ
petition for seeking issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities
in relation to the properties in question. No writ petition can be entertained
for issuance of any writ against any private individual in respect of any
private property dispute. The remedy in such case lies in civil Courts.
The questions such as, who is the
owner of the land in question, whether the land in question was let out and, if
so, when, why and for what purpose, who had the right to let out the said land,
what was the arrangements, if any, made in the memorandum of settlement in
relation to the land in question inter se members of the family, whether it was
breached or not and, if so, by whom, what activities are being carried on the
said land and, if so, by whom, whether such activities are legal or illegal
etc. are not the questions which can be raised by any private individual
against other private individual in the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The parties, therefore, will be at liberty to take recourse to
all judicial remedies, as may be available to them in law, for adjudication of
their respective grievances in appropriate judicial forum against each other.
Similarly, it is for the State authorities to see as to whether any person(s)
has/have contravened or/and is/are contravening any provision(s) of any Act or
Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes in any manner while using the
properties and, if so, what action is called for qua such persons and against
the activities carried on by such person(s) in law.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] AND [DINESH MAHESHWARI] JJ;
January 31, 2019
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7390 - 7391 OF 2009
N. Sankaranarayanan ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7405 - 7406 OF 2009
Aruna Theatres & Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
In Civil Appeal Nos. 7390 - 7391 of 2009
1. These appeals are
directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed bythe
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and Writ
Petition No.5718 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the writ appeal and the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out few relevant
facts hereinbelow.
3. The appellant herein is
the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and writ petitioner in W.P. No.
5718 of 2005 whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein are the respondents of the
said writ appeal and the writ petition out of which these appeals arise.
4. In the aforesaid writ
petition, the Single Judge passed an interim order dated 07.03.2005. The appellant
herein (writ petitioner) felt aggrieved by the said interim order and filed
intra court appeal before the Division Bench.
5. The Division Bench, with
the consent of the parties, decided the main writ petition itself on merits and
finding no merit therein dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein by the impugned order, which has given rise to filing of these appeals
by way of special leave by the writ petitioner in this Court.
6. On perusal of the list of
dates, special leave petitions, writ petition, its counter, the documents enclosed
in the appeal and lastly, the findings of the Division Bench in the impugned
order, it is clear that the dispute, which was subject matter of the writ
petition and which is now carried in these appeals at the instance of the writ
petitioner (appellant herein), is essentially between the members of one family
whose ancestor was Late S. Narayanapillai. He died leaving behind six sons. Late
S. Narayanapillai owned several propertieswhich, on his death, were inherited
by his legal representatives.
7. The disputes arose between
the members of the family of Late S. Narayanapillai on his death. In order to
resolve the disputes, the members of the family, therefore, executed one
memorandum of understanding on 24.09.1998 in relation to their family
properties. Unfortunately, the disputes did not come to an end and, on the
other hand, persisted amongst them, which led to filing of the cases in the
Company Law Board by some members against the other and also the writ petition
in question by the appellant herein.
8. The dispute, which is
subject matter of the writ petition out of which these appeals arise, centers
around to the land which is situated in a scheme known as "Ashok Nagar
Scheme" in Chennai. The dispute is between the appellant, who is one of
the members of the family and respondentNo. 2, which is a Private Limited
Company formed by another member of the family.
9. One of the grievances of
the appellant against respondent No. 2 in the writ petition is that respondent
no 2 is running a petrol pump on a portion of the land in question and has also
let out its part to respondent No. 3 who, in turn, is using the same as
marriage hall for public under the name "Udayam Kalyana Mandapam".
This act of respondent No. 2 is being objected to by the appellant amongst them.
10. It is with these
background facts and the grievance, which is elaborated, the appellant filed a writ
petition and sought therein a relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus against
the State authorities namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (R1), Chennai City
Municipal Corporation (R4) and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (R5) directing
them jointly and severally to take appropriate actionin law against Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 and restrain them from continuing with their activities on the
land. According to the appellant, the activities undertaken by respondent No. 3
on the land in question are illegal, hazardous and against the public safety
inasmuch as they are being carried in violation of several provisions of the
laws in force.
11. As mentioned above, the
Division Bench dismissed the writ petition finding no merit therein with the
following reasons in Para 17, which reads as under:
“17. A perusal of the records produced before this Court leaves
no iota of doubt that principally the dispute now raised before this Court is a
private dispute between the various family members having contesting the claims
to be on the Board apart from those relating to the affairs of the Company. It
is an admitted fact that the company is a closely held company by a family members
of six brothers. The present dispute is nothing but a trial for the show of
their respective strength to each other herein. A petition before the Company
Law Board is pending consideration as regards the continuance of the
directorship of Mr.Muthusami. Whatever be the merits of the petition before the
Company Law Board, taking note of the various contentions, which included a dispute
with reference to the area occupied by the Theatre and the construction of the mandapam
and the petrol pump, this Court in the order passed on 19.9.2007 in C.M.A.
No.1900 of 2007 has rightly directed the Company Law Board to dispose of the
main petition by 31.1.2008.”
12. The question, which
arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the Division Bench was justified
in dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the aforementioned reasoning.
13. We heard the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Having heard the
learned counsel, we are inclined to agree with the reasoning and the conclusion
arrived at by the Division Bench in the impugned order.
14. In our considered opinion
also, the writ petition filed by the appellant was wholly misconceived and
deserved dismissal at the threshold.
15. As rightly observed by
the Division Bench, the dispute sought to be raised by the appellant in his writ
petition was essentially a private property dispute between the members of one
family of which the appellant and respondent No. 2 are the members.
16. By indirect means such as
the one resorted to by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) by filing the writ
petition, a dispute inter se private parties of the nature mentioned above could not be
allowed to be raised in the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution for seeking issuance of mandamus against the State and its
authorities in relation to the properties in question.
17. It is not in dispute that
the appellant did not file the writ petition in his capacity as publicspirited person,
i.e., Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It was, on the other hand, a writ
petition was filed by the appellant essentially to settle his personalproperty
rights disputes qua respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. It is a settled law that no writ petition can be entertained for
issuance of any writ against any private individual in respect of any private
property dispute. The remedy in such case lies in civil Courts.
18. In other words, it is a
settled law that the questions such as, who is the owner of the land in question,
the appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other member of their family, whether
the land in question was let out by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and,
if so, when, why and for what purpose, who had the right to let out the said land
(appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other member of the family), what was the
arrangements, if any, made in the memorandum of settlement in relation to the
land in question inter se members of the family, whether it was breached or not and, if so,
by whom, what activities are being carried onthe said land and, if so, by whom,
whether such activities are legal or illegal etc. are not the questions which
can be raised by any private individual against other private individual in the
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
19. Even if the writ
petitioner did not raise pointedly these questions for claiming reliefs in the writ
petition yet, in our view, such questions have a material bearing while
considering the grant of reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition.
20. It is not in dispute that
some proceedings are pending before the Company Law Board between the parties
in relation to their private property disputes. If that be so, the parties to
such proceedings have to prosecute the proceedings before CLB in accordance
with law for obtaining appropriate reliefs.
21. Before parting, we
consider it apposite to mention that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case. Rather, it is not possible to express any opinion for want
of jurisdiction. The parties, therefore, will be at liberty to take recourse to
all judicial remedies, as may be available to them in law, for adjudication of
their respective grievances in appropriate judicial forum against each other.
22. Similarly, it is for the
State authorities to see as to whether any person(s) has/have contravened or/and
is/are contravening any provision(s) of any Act or Rules or Regulations or
Statutory Schemes in any manner while using the properties and, if so, what
action is called for qua such
persons and against the activities carried on by such person(s) in law. We,
however, express no opinion on any of these issues and leave it for the State
authorities toact against any such person(s) in accordance with law.
23. We also make it clear that
all such disputes between the parties concerned on its merits will be decided
strictly in accordance with law by the Court/Tribunal/Authority, as the case
may be, uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned
order and by this Court in this order.
24. In the light of the
foregoing discussion and with the aforementioned observations and the liberty,
we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and are hereby
dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed stands vacated.
In Civil Appeal Nos.7405 - 7406 of 2009
These appeals are filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petition
and the writ appeal against the final judgment and order dated 04.03.2008
passedby the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.1499 of 2005 and
W.P. No.5718 of 2005.
In view of the order passed above in CA Nos.73907391 of 2009,
these appeals are also dismissed.