Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.73907391 OF 2009
N. Sankaranarayanan ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.74057406 OF 2009
Aruna Theatres & Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
In Civil Appeal Nos.73907391 of 2009
1. These appeals are directed against the final
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.31
16:58:07 IST
Reason:
judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed by
1
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ
Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.5718
of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the writ appeal and the writ
petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved
in these appeals, it is necessary to set out few
relevant facts hereinbelow.
3. The appellant herein is the appellant in Writ
Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and writ petitioner in W.P.
No. 5718 of 2005 whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 6
herein are the respondents of the said writ appeal
and the writ petition out of which these appeals
arise.
4. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Single Judge
passed an interim order dated 07.03.2005. The
appellant herein (writ petitioner) felt aggrieved by
the said interim order and filed intra court appeal
before the Division Bench.
2
5. The Division Bench, with the consent of the
parties, decided the main writ petition itself on
merits and finding no merit therein dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant herein by the
impugned order, which has given rise to filing of
these appeals by way of special leave by the writ
petitioner in this Court.
6. On perusal of the list of dates, special leave
petitions, writ petition, its counter, the documents
enclosed in the appeal and lastly, the findings of the
Division Bench in the impugned order, it is clear
that the dispute, which was subject matter of the
writ petition and which is now carried in these
appeals at the instance of the writ petitioner
(appellant herein), is essentially between the
members of one family whose ancestor was Late S.
Narayanapillai. He died leaving behind six sons.
Late S. Narayanapillai owned several properties
3
which, on his death, were inherited by his legal
representatives.
7. The disputes arose between the members of
the family of Late S. Narayanapillai on his death. In
order to resolve the disputes, the members of the
family, therefore, executed one memorandum of
understanding on 24.09.1998 in relation to their
family properties. Unfortunately, the disputes did
not come to an end and, on the other hand,
persisted amongst them, which led to filing of the
cases in the Company Law Board by some members
against the other and also the writ petition in
question by the appellant herein.
8. The dispute, which is subject matter of the
writ petition out of which these appeals arise,
centers around to the land which is situated in a
scheme known as "Ashok Nagar Scheme" in
Chennai. The dispute is between the appellant, who
is one of the members of the family and respondent
4
No. 2, which is a Private Limited Company formed
by another member of the family.
9. One of the grievances of the appellant against
respondent No. 2 in the writ petition is that
respondent no 2 is running a petrol pump on a
portion of the land in question and has also let out
its part to respondent No. 3 who, in turn, is using
the same as marriage hall for public under the
name "Udayam Kalyana Mandapam". This act of
respondent No. 2 is being objected to by the
appellant amongst them.
10. It is with these background facts and the
grievance, which is elaborated, the appellant filed a
writ petition and sought therein a relief for issuance
of a writ of mandamus against the State authorities
namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (R1), Chennai
City Municipal Corporation (R4) and Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority (R 5) directing
them jointly and severally to take appropriate action
5
in law against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and
restrain them from continuing with their activities
on the land. According to the appellant, the
activities undertaken by respondent No. 3 on the
land in question are illegal, hazardous and against
the public safety inasmuch as they are being carried
in violation of several provisions of the laws in force.
11. As mentioned above, the Division Bench
dismissed the writ petition finding no merit therein
with the following reasons in Para 17, which reads
as under:
“17. A perusal of the records produced
before this Court leaves no iota of
doubt that principally the dispute now
raised before this Court is a private
dispute between the various family
members having contesting the claims
to be on the Board apart from those
relating to the affairs of the Company.
It is an admitted fact that the company
is a closely held company by a family
members of six brothers. The present
dispute is nothing but a trial for the
show of their respective strength to
each other herein. A petition before
the Company Law Board is pending
consideration as regards the
continuance of the directorship of Mr.
6
Muthusami. Whatever be the merits of
the petition before the Company Law
Board, taking note of the various
contentions, which included a dispute
with reference to the area occupied by
the Theatre and the construction of the
mandapam and the petrol pump, this
Court in the order passed on 19.9.2007
in C.M.A. No.1900 of 2007 has rightly
directed the Company Law Board to
dispose of the main petition by
31.1.2008.”
12. The question, which arises for consideration in
these appeals, is whether the Division Bench was
justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition
on the aforementioned reasoning.
13. We heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record of the case. Having heard
the learned counsel, we are inclined to agree with
the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
Division Bench in the impugned order.
14. In our considered opinion also, the writ
petition filed by the appellant was wholly
misconceived and deserved dismissal at the
threshold.
7
15. As rightly observed by the Division Bench, the
dispute sought to be raised by the appellant in his
writ petition was essentially a private property
dispute between the members of one family of which
the appellant and respondent No. 2 are the
members.
16. By indirect means such as the one resorted to
by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) by filing the
writ petition, a dispute inter se private parties of the
nature mentioned above could not be allowed to be
raised in the writ petition under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution for seeking issuance of mandamus
against the State and its authorities in relation to
the properties in question.
17. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not
file the writ petition in his capacity as public
spirited person, i.e., Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
It was, on the other hand, a writ petition was filed
by the appellant essentially to settle his personal
8
property rights disputes qua respondent Nos. 2 and
3. It is a settled law that no writ petition can be
entertained for issuance of any writ against any
private individual in respect of any private property
dispute. The remedy in such case lies in civil
Courts.
18. In other words, it is a settled law that the
questions such as, who is the owner of the land in
question, the appellant or respondent No. 2 or any
other member of their family, whether the land in
question was let out by respondent No. 2 to
respondent No. 3 and, if so, when, why and for
what purpose, who had the right to let out the said
land (appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other
member of the family), what was the arrangements,
if any, made in the memorandum of settlement in
relation to the land in question inter se members of
the family, whether it was breached or not and, if
so, by whom, what activities are being carried on
9
the said land and, if so, by whom, whether such
activities are legal or illegal etc. are not the
questions which can be raised by any private
individual against other private individual in the
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
19. Even if the writ petitioner did not raise
pointedly these questions for claiming reliefs in the
writ petition yet, in our view, such questions have
a material bearing while considering the grant of
reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in the writ
petition.
20. It is not in dispute that some proceedings are
pending before the Company Law Board between
the parties in relation to their private property
disputes. If that be so, the parties to such
proceedings have to prosecute the proceedings
before CLB in accordance with law for obtaining
appropriate reliefs.
10
21. Before parting, we consider it apposite to
mention that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case. Rather, it is not possible to
express any opinion for want of jurisdiction. The
parties, therefore, will be at liberty to take recourse
to all judicial remedies, as may be available to them
in law, for adjudication of their respective
grievances in appropriate judicial forum against
each other.
22. Similarly, it is for the State authorities to see
as to whether any person(s) has/have contravened
or/and is/are contravening any provision(s) of any
Act or Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes in
any manner while using the properties and, if so,
what action is called for qua such persons and
against the activities carried on by such person(s) in
law. We, however, express no opinion on any of
these issues and leave it for the State authorities to
11
act against any such person(s) in accordance with
law.
23. We also make it clear that all such disputes
between the parties concerned on its merits will be
decided strictly in accordance with law by the
Court/Tribunal/Authority, as the case may be,
uninfluenced by any observation made by the High
Court in the impugned order and by this Court in
this order.
24. In the light of the foregoing discussion and
with the aforementioned observations and the
liberty, we find no merit in these appeals. The
appeals thus fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim
order, if any, passed stands vacated.
In Civil Appeal Nos.74057406 of 2009
These appeals are filed by respondent No.2 in
the writ petition and the writ appeal against the
final judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed
12
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.
No.1499 of 2005 and W.P. No.5718 of 2005.
In view of the order passed above in CA
Nos.73907391 of 2009, these appeals are also
dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
January 31, 2019.
13