Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO. 2457-2458 OF 2009
JOYDEEP BHATTACHARJEE .......PETITIONER
Versus
BHUPENDRA KUMAR MAZUMDAR & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
There is a dispute in regard to certain
property in Tinsukia, between the petitioner and
respondents 13 and 14 on the one hand and respondents 1 to
3 on the other. Respondents 1 to 3 filed W.P.(C) No.2407
of 1999 alleging that the petitioner with the help of
others forcibly demolished the boundary fence and tried to
interfere with their possession and seeking a direction to
respondents not to indulge in the illegal activity of
evicting them from their own patta land in the name of
demarcation of boundary and to remove the pillars put up in
their land on 15.5.1999 and other consequential reliefs.
The said writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 was
dismissed by a learned single Judge by order dated
20.5.1999 on the ground that the reliefs sought related to
disputed questions relating to title and possession. The
learned single Judge relegated respondents 1 to 3 to the
remedy of a civil suit.
2. Feeling aggrieved, respondents 1 to 3 filed a
writ
.....2.
- 2 -
appeal. The said writ appeal was allowed by a division
bench of the Gauhati High Court in part by order dated
23.12.2005. The said order noted that respondents 10 to 12
in the writ appeal (petitioner and respondents 13, 14
herein) had entered appearance through their counsel but
the said counsel had withdrawn their appearance and
thereafter though notices were served on them, they did not
arrange for fresh representation in the appeal. The
division bench also noted that petitioner and respondents
13 and 14 had filed a suit for declaration of title in
regard to the property in question but had subsequently
withdrawn the same. It directed the authorities
(respondents 4 to 7, 9 and 10) to restore the possession of
the land in dispute (measuring less than 2 kathas) to
respondents 1 to 3 and directed petitioner and respondents
13 and 14 to remove the structures and tube well. It
directed that any measurement or demarcation should be
undertaken only pursuant to order passed by a legally
recognised forum in a proceedings participated by both
parties. It directed the parties to approach the Civil
Court or appropriate forum for deciding their dispute. It
made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the
merits.
....3.
- 3 -
3. The petitioner filed a review petition which
was dismissed on 30.9.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner has filed these petitions seeking special leave
to file appeals challenging the order dated 23.12.2005 and
the review order dated 30.9.2008. Though there is a delay
of 1023 days with reference to the order dated 23.12.2005,
as the review petition was dismissed only on 30.9.2008 and
the SLPs are in time with reference to the dated of the
review order, we are of the view that the delay should be
condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay.
4. The High Court directed restoration as writ
petitioners were dispossessed during the pendency of the
writ appeal, and such dispossession was by exceeding the
ambit of the order dated 2.9.2003 in W.P.(C) No.6991/2003
filed by the petitioner without disclosing the pendency of
the writ appeal (WA No.167/1999). We find that the division
bench of the High Court has not decided or expressed any
opinion in regard to merits, but has merely relegated the
parties to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law,
subject to restoration. There is, therefore, no need to
interfere with the said order except to provide the
following safeguards:-
(a) Respondents 1 to 3 herein, to whom possession has
....4.
- 4 -
been restored on 25.1.2006 in pursuance of order dated
23.12.2005 of the High court, shall not put up any
structure nor alienate the same for a period of six months
from today. Either party may approach the Civil Court or
other appropriate forum in accordance with law within the
said period and seek appropriate interim relief;
(b) If and when either party approaches the Civil Court
or other alternative forum, such Court or forum shall
decide the subject matter of such suit or proceedings on
the basis of the pleadings before it and the evidence let
in and will not be influenced by any observations that
might have been made by either the learned single Judge or
the Division Bench in their orders dated 20.5.1999 and
23.12.2005.
(c) Having regard to the nature of disputes and the
allegation of forcibly dispossession etc., the Civil
Court/appropriate forum shall endeavour to dispose of the
suit or proceedings expeditiously preferably within one
year.
......................J.
( R.V.
RAVEENDRAN )
New Delhi; ......................J.
October 25, 2010. ( A.K. PATNAIK )