Supreme Court directs High Court to not decide on disputed facts in writ jurisdiction: State of UP vs. Ehsan (2023) INSC 906 (13 October 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 906

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can a High Court decide on a factual dispute in a writ petition, especially when that issue was not decided in earlier litigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the limitations of writ jurisdiction when factual disputes are significant. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court should have decided if the State had taken actual possession of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, before the Act was repealed. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment, with Justice Manoj Misra authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a land dispute in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The original petitioner, Ehsan, owned land measuring 7499.20 square meters. Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, proceedings were initiated against him, and on 26 November 1977, the Competent Authority declared 5499.20 square meters of his land as surplus.

Ehsan challenged this order in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 1986, but the petition was dismissed on 3 January 1986. The High Court, however, allowed Ehsan to raise the issue of jurisdiction before the Competent Authority. Ehsan then filed objections before the Competent Authority, which were rejected on 27 March 1987. The Competent Authority stated that possession of the surplus land had already been taken.

Ehsan again approached the High Court in 1987, and an interim order was passed on 20 August 1987, stating that he should not be dispossessed from the land. This petition was disposed of on 28 February 2001, after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, was notified. The High Court stated that if possession had not been taken, the proceedings would abate, but if possession had been taken, they would not.

In 2012, Ehsan filed a third writ petition, claiming that actual possession of the land was never taken and that the ceiling proceedings should be considered abated under the Repeal Act, 1999. The State of Uttar Pradesh, in response, claimed that possession was taken on 8 March 1979, after issuing a notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, in the third writ petition, ruled in favor of Ehsan, stating that actual physical possession was not taken by the State. The High Court noted that the notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was not properly served, and the possession memo was not signed by the landholder. The High Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280], Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and Others [(2012) 1 SCC 792], and State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Others [(2015) 5 SCC 321].

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The relevant provisions are:

• Section 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: This section deals with the publication of a notification specifying the land that is declared surplus.
• Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: This section provides for the vesting of surplus land in the State government after the notification under Section 10(1).
• Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: This section stipulates that the competent authority may serve a notice on the person in possession of the surplus land to surrender the land.
• Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: This section allows the competent authority to take possession of the land by force if the person in possession refuses or fails to surrender the land.
• Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999: This section states that the repeal of the 1976 Act does not affect the vesting of any land under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State.
• Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999: This section provides for the abatement of all proceedings under the 1976 Act if possession of the land has not been taken over by the State.

The interplay between these provisions determines whether the land continues to be subject to the ceiling laws or if the proceedings abate due to the repeal of the 1976 Act.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of U.P.):

• The State argued that notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was served on 27 February 1979, and possession was taken on 8 March 1979.
• Since the original petitioner avoided signing the possession memorandum, the Competent Authority took possession in the presence of two co-sharers and prepared a memorandum.
• The State’s name was entered in the revenue records on 17 March 1982, and the land was transferred to the Saharanpur Development Authority on 26 May 2003.
• The State contended that the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999, is not available to the original petitioner.
• The State also argued that a writ petition is not maintainable when there is a serious dispute on facts, such as whether actual possession was taken.
• The State further contended that the writ petition was filed with a delay as the land was transferred to the Saharanpur Development Authority in 2003, and the petition was filed in 2012.
• The State argued that once the land vests in the State and possession is taken, the State becomes the absolute owner and cannot be divested of its title.

Arguments by the Respondent (Ehsan):

• The respondent argued that any action taken before the High Court’s order on 3 January 1986, became subject to further orders.
• The respondent contended that the interim order of 20 August 1987, directed that he should not be dispossessed, and the writ petition was disposed of without holding that actual possession was taken.
• The respondent claimed that the burden was on the State to establish that possession was taken in accordance with law.
• The respondent argued that there was no compliance with Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as 30 days’ notice was not given, and the possession memorandum was not signed by the landholder.
• The respondent argued that no compensation was paid, and there was no evidence of possession taken under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
• The respondent argued that the cause of action arose when revenue entries were disturbed, and the writ petition was filed promptly thereafter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction the High Court should have refrained from adjudicating the contentious issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land from the landholder, when the same was not decided in the previous round of litigation even though it had arisen for consideration?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have decided the factual dispute regarding possession in its writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that a serious dispute existed regarding the taking of actual possession, and the High Court had previously refrained from deciding this issue. The Supreme Court also observed that the original petitioner had delayed approaching the court and had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to support his claim. The Court emphasized that when there is a serious factual dispute, the writ court should refrain from deciding it and relegate the petitioner to a civil suit.

The following authorities were viewed by the court as follows:

✓ State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280]*: The Court discussed this case regarding the procedure for taking possession and drawing adverse inference against the State for not following the procedure, but also noted that this case is not applicable when the issue of possession is raised after a long delay.

✓ State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Others [(2015) 5 SCC 321]*: The Court distinguished this case regarding the waiver of rights under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the effect of delay in raising grievances about dispossession.

✓ Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharalal [(2020) 8 SCC 1]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that once title vests in the State, the landholder becomes a trespasser if they retain possession.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so.”

“One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.”

“And if the writ court finds it difficult to determine such question, either for insufficient / inconclusive materials /evidence(s) on record or because oral evidence would also be required to form a definite opinion, it may relegate the writ petitioner to a suit, if the suit is otherwise maintainable.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the presence of a serious factual dispute regarding the possession of land. The court noted that this issue was not resolved in previous litigation and that the High Court should have refrained from deciding it in writ jurisdiction. The Court also considered the delay in filing the writ petition and the lack of sufficient documentary evidence from the original petitioner. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving complex factual disputes, especially when an alternative remedy like a civil suit is available.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should refrain from deciding serious factual disputes in writ jurisdiction, especially when such issues were not resolved in previous litigation.
• When there is a significant dispute regarding facts, parties should be relegated to a civil suit where evidence can be properly examined.
• Delay in approaching the court and lack of documentary evidence can weaken a petitioner’s case.
• The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition and not a binding opinion on the issue of possession.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to institute a civil suit. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not decide disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction, especially when such issues were not decided in previous rounds of litigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving complex factual disputes, and parties should be relegated to a civil suit where evidence can be properly examined. This case does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the limitations of writ jurisdiction in cases involving serious factual disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of U.P. vs. Ehsan emphasizes the limitations of writ jurisdiction when dealing with disputed questions of fact. The Court held that the High Court should not have decided the issue of possession in a writ petition, especially when the issue was not resolved in previous litigation and the petitioner had delayed approaching the court. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of relegating parties to a civil suit when factual disputes are significant and require detailed examination of evidence.