Bhagwan Dass vs Union Of India And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, Sri C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 & 5 and Sri T.S. Bindra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 7 & 8 and, with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner (appellant herein) invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1450 of 2007 on 4.09.2007 wherein he sought a mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to deliver possession of the allotted land, admeasuring 0.700 hectares situated in Bagral village, Dehradun, to the appellant-writ petitioner; to direct them to incorporate the change in the revenue records; and to award exemplary costs to the appellant-writ petitioner, against the respondents, taking into account the mental agony and pain caused to him during the course of litigation.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, according to the petitioner, the subject land, which was declared as evacuee property under the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short the "1950 Act") was allotted to his father, and a Sanad was issued under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short the "1954 Act"); the said order of allotment attained finality under Section 27 of the 1954 Act; the State had initially contended that the land stood vested in it; on an order passed by the Revenue Tribunal, it was declared that the State had no right or title over the subject property; and since the State had dispossessed the appellant-writ petitioner on the ground that the title over the property vested in them, and as the claim of the State has been negated by the Revenue Tribunal, it was obligatory on the State Government to deliver possession of the said property back to the appellant-writ petitioner.

The learned Single Judge noted that the case of the private respondents, on the other hand, was that they were Bhumidhars in respect of the subject land; the original tenure holder Mr. Rahim Bux, S/o Mr. Ali Bux, was granted Bhumidhari Sanad under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; his legal heirs had transferred the land to Sri O.C. Kundan who, in turn, had transferred it to Prem Prakash and Ms. Rashmi; and the subject land exchanged several hands before the private respondents purchased it through registered sale-deeds.

The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that the private respondents were asserting their title over the land in question; it was their case that their names were also recorded in the revenue records, and they were in settled possession over the land in dispute; it was contended, on behalf of the State Government, that the land stood vested in it; all the parties to the writ petition were asserting their title over the subject land; there was a dispute regarding possession also; and the dispute before him required the Court to go into complex and disputed questions of fact for deciding the writ petition. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma and others : (2015) 5 SCC 321; Antonio S.C. Pereira vs. Ricardina Noronha (Dead) by LRs : (2006) 7 SCC 740; and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti : (2006) 9 SCC 524, to hold that disputed questions of title and possession cannot, ordinarily, be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; since complex questions of fact were involved in this writ petition, and those questions could not be effectively determined without recording oral evidence, the questions raised in this writ petition could not be appropriately tried in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and the title disputes between the parties could be effectively decided in a title suit before the competent Court. The writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate legal forum for determination of their rights.

Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the learned Single Judge had erred in relegating the appellant-writ petitioner to the remedy of a suit seeking adjudication of his title over the property; the Supreme Court had directed this Court to decide the lis; since the order passed by the competent Revenue Tribunal has attained finality, the State Government is obligated, in law, to deliver possession to them; the appellant-writ petitioner cannot be made to run from pillar to post for delivery of possession of the land, which rightfully belongs to him; since this writ petition has been pending on the file of this Court ever since 04.09.2007 (for past nearly 12 years), even if the appellant-writ petitioner were to now avail the remedy of a civil suit, his claim for declaration of title, or delivery of possession, would stand rejected on the ground of limitation.

On the other hand, Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel and Sri T.S. Bindra, learned counsel for the private respondents, would submit that the appellant-writ petitioner's claim of title over the subject land is untenable; it is the private respondents who have title over that land; their names have also been mutated in the revenue records for the past several years; any claim for declaration of title can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court / competent Revenue Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, and not in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the Civil Court /Revenue Tribunal can always be directed to consider the petitioner's contention that their claim is not barred by limitation, in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, since the matter has been pending on the file of this Court from September, 2007; even by September, 2007, the appellant-writ petitioner's claim was barred by limitation; while this Court may consider directing the Civil Court / Revenue Tribunal not to non-suit the appellant-writ petitioner on the ground of limitation from 4.09.2007 when he filed the present writ petition, any delay in his invoking the jurisdiction of this Court prior thereto cannot be condoned or ignored; and the appellant-writ petitioner's belief, that this Court is obligated to hear and adjudicate the writ in the light of the order of the Supreme Court, is misconceived.

The 4th respondent had earlier filed Writ Petition (M/B) No.816 of 2003 and a Division Bench of this Court had, in its order dated 14.02.2006, observed that the Lok Ayukta could not entertain any complaint involving a grievance urged by the respondent therein in case the complainant had the remedy by way of proceedings before any Tribunal or Court of law; private rights of the individuals could not be decided by the Lok Ayukta; the Lok Ayukta had exceeded his jurisdiction; and the respondent had a remedy under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and he could redress his grievance by filing a declaratory suit in a competent Court. The order passed by the Lok Ayukta of Uttaranchal dated 08.08.2003 was quashed.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioner herein (who was the fourth respondent in the said writ petition) filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8723 of 2006, and the Supreme Court, in its order dated 15.02.2007, found no ground to interfere with the impugned order in so far as it held that the Lok Ayukta had exceeded his jurisdiction. However, in so far as the direction of the High Court that the appellant-writ petitioner could avail his remedy under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is concerned, the order was modified; and the appellant-writ petitioner was permitted to seek redressal of his grievance, if so advised, by filing a fresh writ application before the High Court.

By its order in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8723 of 2006 dated 15.02.2007, the Supreme Court merely granted the appellant-writ petitioner liberty to approach this Court. The said order did not obligate this Court to decide disputed questions of title, in as much as such disputes can be effectively adjudicated only by a competent Court / Revenue Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced before it, both oral and documentary.

We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as the appellant-writ petitioner was relegated to approach the competent forum seeking resolution of his claim of title over the subject land, and for delivery of possession thereof. We, however, find force in the submission of Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, that, even if the appellant-writ petitioner were now to be relegated to file a Suit or to approach the Revenue Tribunal, it is possible that the Civil Court / Revenue Tribunal may non-suit him on the ground of limitation; and the appellant-writ petitioner cannot be penalized merely because Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1450 of 2007 has been pending on the file of this Court for the past nearly 12 years ever since 04.09.2007.

It is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on this issue any further, as both Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel and Sri T.S. Bindra, learned counsel for the private respondents, would fairly state that, for the period during which the writ petition was pending on the file of this Court from 04.09.2007 onwards, the Civil Court / Revenue Tribunal may, in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, be directed to entertain the Suit / claim notwithstanding the delay in invoking its jurisdiction, however only from 04.09.2007 when the present writ petition was instituted, and not prior thereto.

In the light of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the private respondents, suffice it to modify the order under appeal to the limited extent that, in case the appellant-writ petitioner avails his remedy of either filing a civil suit before a civil court of competent jurisdiction or a claim petition before a competent Revenue Tribunal, the said suit / petition shall not be rejected merely on the ground of limitation from the date of institution of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1450 of 2007 before this Court on 04.09.2007, till today when this order has now been passed.

Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.