Supreme Court Upholds Private Land Ownership in Maharashtra Land Dispute: Esteem Properties vs. Chetan Kamble (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 178

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna J., and Hima Kohli J. (authored by N.V. Ramana, CJI)

Can a public interest litigation (PIL) be used to settle a private property dispute? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a land ownership dispute in Maharashtra. The Court examined whether a PIL was the appropriate legal avenue for challenging a quasi-judicial order concerning the title of a property, particularly when the dispute was between a private party and the State Government. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the maintainability of the PIL, emphasizing the need for caution when entertaining such petitions.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a piece of land measuring 5 acres and 20 gunthas in Mumbai. The land was originally owned by the Khot of Kurla, as per a grant made by the East India Company in 1819. In 1894, the ancestors of the Gonsalves family became the owners of the land through a Deed of Exchange.

In 1953, an inquiry under the Salsette Estate (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 declared the land as Government land. The successors of the Khot filed a civil suit against this finding, which was settled by a Consent Decree in 1963, affirming the State’s claim. However, the Gonsalves family was not a party to this decree.

In 1962, another inquiry under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLR Code) also concluded that the land belonged to the State Government. The Gonsalves family then filed a civil suit in 1971, stating that the orders passed in the City Survey enquiry were void and illegal, and that the Consent Decree of 1963 was not binding on them. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 20(2) of the MLR Code were initiated, rendering the 1971 suit redundant.

The Sub-Divisional Officer declared the land as State land in 1988, which was confirmed in appeals. However, in 1995, the Revenue Minister allowed the Gonsalves family’s revision application, declaring them as the absolute owners based on the 1894 Deed of Exchange. This order was later set aside in 1998, but it was restored in 2007 after Esteem Properties, the successor-in-interest to the Gonsalves family, filed a revision application.

In 2008, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed challenging the Revenue Minister’s 2007 order. The Bombay High Court allowed the PIL, restoring the 1998 order that vested the land with the State Government. Esteem Properties then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLR Code), which deals with the power of review by the State Government and revenue officers. Section 258(1) of the MLR Code states:

“258. (1) The State Government and every revenue or survey office may, either on its or his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself or himself or any of its or his predecessors in office and pass such orders in reference thereto as it or he thinks fit: Provided that, – (i) ……… (ii) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order”

This section allows the State Government or revenue officers to review their own orders or those of their predecessors. However, it also mandates that no order can be varied or reversed without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard to the interested parties. This provision is crucial to the case as it highlights the importance of natural justice and due process in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.

Arguments

The appellants, Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd., argued that:

• The PIL filed by the respondents should not have been entertained due to the respondents’ criminal history.
• The dispute was essentially a private matter between the appellants and the State, and therefore, a PIL was not the appropriate remedy.
• The order dated 11.10.1995, which vested the land with the Gonsalves family, had attained finality as no suit was filed against it within the stipulated time under Section 20(4) of the MLR Code.
• The review proceedings that resulted in the order dated 17.03.1998 were in violation of Section 258(1)(ii) of the MLR Code, as no notice was given to the Gonsalves family.
• The State Government itself had filed an affidavit stating that the order dated 11.10.1995 was correct and that the appellants were not given a hearing before the order dated 17.03.1998 was passed.

The State of Maharashtra submitted that:

• A quasi-judicial order cannot be challenged by a stranger or third party in the guise of a PIL.
• The order dated 10.12.2007, which restored the order dated 11.10.1995, was valid.

The respondents (PIL petitioners) contended that:

• They had no personal interest in the property, but they filed the PIL because public property was being transferred to private individuals, leading to a loss of public revenue.
• The conflicting orders passed by various authorities prompted them to file the PIL.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Do the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have sufficient locus to maintain the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation?
2. Is the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Revenue Minister valid in law?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the PIL filed by the respondents was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the dispute was essentially a private matter between the appellants and the State, and therefore, a PIL was not the appropriate remedy.

The Court also noted that the State Government itself had conceded the title to the appellants, making the PIL even more unwarranted. The Court highlighted the importance of natural justice and due process, noting that the order dated 17.03.1998 was passed without giving the Gonsalves family an adequate hearing.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The authorities considered by the Supreme Court were used to support its reasoning for resolving the issue.

• State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402: The Court used this case to emphasize the need to discourage frivolous PILs and to verify the credentials of the petitioner.
• T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28: This case was cited to highlight the options available to the Court when dealing with PILs, such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae.
• Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 530: The Court reiterated the need to be cautious while entertaining PILs, emphasizing that they are meant for the marginalized.
• Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code: The Court analyzed this provision to highlight the importance of natural justice and the requirement of giving notice to affected parties before varying or reversing an order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Locus Standi of PIL Petitioners: The Court found that the PIL petitioners lacked sufficient locus standi to maintain the litigation, as the dispute was essentially a private matter between the appellants and the State.
• State Government’s Position: The State Government had conceded the title to the appellants, which further weakened the PIL petitioners’ case.
• Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that the order dated 17.03.1998 was passed without giving the Gonsalves family an adequate hearing, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 258 of the MLR Code.
• Abuse of Process: The Court concluded that the PIL was an abuse of the process, as it was used to agitate a private dispute.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning: Maintainability of PIL

Key Takeaways

• Limitations of PIL Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court clarified that PILs should not be used to settle private property disputes, especially when the State itself is not contesting the title.
• Importance of Natural Justice: The judgment underscores the importance of providing a fair hearing to all parties affected by a decision. The Court emphasized that any order passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside.
• Locus Standi in PIL: The Court reiterated that PIL petitioners must have a genuine public interest and should not be using the process for personal gain or to settle private disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals with costs and disposed of any pending applications.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not maintainable in a dispute regarding the title of a property between a private party and the State, especially when the State concedes the title to the private party. This judgment reinforces the limitations of PIL jurisdiction and emphasizes the importance of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings. There is no change in the previous position of law but this judgment emphasizes the need for caution when entertaining PILs.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s order and upheld the private ownership of the land, ruling that the PIL was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that PILs should not be used to settle private disputes, and it reiterated the importance of natural justice and due process in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. This judgment serves as a reminder of the limitations of PIL jurisdiction and the need for caution when entertaining such petitions.