1957 (3) TMI 45 - SC - Indian Laws

Writ Petition Denied in Property Dispute Appeal

SOHAN LAL Versus THE UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in directing the restoration of possession of a house through a writ petition, as the dispute over title ... A displaced person, was found Prima facie entitled to allotment of a house and the Accommodation Officer moved his family into the house on May 10, 1952, but no letter of allotment was issued to him. Later, when certain facts became known which in the opinion of the Union of India disentitled j to the allotment, he was informed that the house could not be allotted to him. j was evicted from the house on September 27, 1952, without being given 15 days notice as required by S. 3 of the Public Premises Eviction Act (XXVII of 1950). The house was then allotted to S and he was given possession on October 3, 1952. J filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. The High Court ordered the Union of India and also S to restore possession of the house to J. S appealed. - Held, that the High Court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus. There was a serious dispute on questions of fact between the parties and also whether j had acquired any title to the property in dispute. Proceedings by way of a Writ were not appropriate in a case where the decision of the Court would amount to a decree declaring a party's title and ordering restoration of possession. Issues:1. Validity of High Court order directing restoration of possession of a house.2. Dispute over title to the property in dispute.3. Applicability of writ of mandamus in the case.4. Legality of eviction and possession of the property.5. Collusion between parties and jurisdiction for issuing writ.Detailed Analysis:1. The Supreme Court judgment dealt with the validity of a High Court order directing the restoration of possession of a house to a displaced person, Jagan Nath, who was a refugee from Pakistan. The appellant, Sohan Lal, also a displaced person, had been in possession of the house after being allotted the property. The High Court order was challenged on the grounds that it was akin to a writ of mandamus and involved disputed facts and questions of title that should be resolved in a civil court rather than through a writ petition.2. The dispute over the title to the property in question arose from the conflicting claims of Jagan Nath and Sohan Lal. Jagan Nath had entered possession of the property but was subsequently evicted, leading to Sohan Lal being allotted the house. The Court noted that determining the rightful owner and resolving the issue of possession required a detailed examination of facts and legal rights, which was more suitable for adjudication in a civil court rather than through a writ petition.3. The Court considered the applicability of a writ of mandamus in the case, emphasizing that such a remedy should only be sought when the facts are clear and undisputed. It was argued that a writ of mandamus could not be issued against a private individual like the appellant unless there was evidence of collusion or illegal actions. The Court highlighted that a writ of mandamus is typically reserved for public duties and not for disputes over private property rights.4. The legality of the eviction of Jagan Nath was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Court found that the eviction had been carried out in contravention of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, rendering it illegal. While Jagan Nath was entitled to be evicted in accordance with the law, the possession of the property had been transferred to the appellant. The Court noted the absence of evidence or findings suggesting collusion between the appellant and the Union of India in the eviction.5. The judgment also addressed the issue of collusion between the parties and the jurisdiction for issuing a writ in such circumstances. The Court highlighted that a writ of mandamus against a private individual requires evidence of collusion or illegal actions. In the absence of such proof, the Court found that the High Court had erred in allowing the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court order, and each party was directed to bear their own costs in the proceedings.