Writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title or pass adverse orders without impleading necessary parties.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court erred in its review jurisdiction by failing to hear necessary parties whose rights were directly affected by the demolition order

The court held

The Court held that the allottees were necessary parties and their absence rendered the demolition order unsustainable

It also directed

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s judgments dated 20.04.2015 and 15.05.2015. The PIL was dismissed. However, the Court granted the State liberty to pursue legal action against the Municipality regarding the legality of the construction in a proper forum

01Facts

Respondent No. 1 filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that the Municipal Council, Khachrod, had unauthorizedly constructed 54 shops on 'Dussehra Maidan' land reserved for cultural festivals

¶ 2.1, 3.1

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the PIL and directed the removal of the shops

¶ 2.1

However, the private Appellants—allottees who had occupied the shops since 2005 through public auction—were never impleaded as parties

¶ 2.2, 3.2

When the allottees filed review petitions citing this breach of natural justice, the High Court dismissed them

¶ 2.2, 3.3

The Municipal Council claimed ownership of the land via historical vesting

¶ 3.4

while the State Government claimed the land belonged to the Najul Department and the construction lacked approval

¶ 3.5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court erred in its review jurisdiction by failing to hear necessary parties whose rights were directly affected by the demolition order

¶ 5, 5.1

ii.2. Whether a High Court, in its writ or PIL jurisdiction, can adjudicate disputed questions of title and ownership

¶ 6

iii.3. Whether the construction of the shops actually obstructed the use of the land for cultural festivals

¶ 7

03Law Applied

The court applied the review standards under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC and Article 226 of the Constitution, establishing that an "error apparent on the face of record" warrants review when a mistake is patent and requires no long-drawn reasoning

¶ 5.2-5.5

It relied on Sohan Lal v. Union of India and Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil to reiterate that disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction

¶ 6.1-6.2

Furthermore, it emphasized that PIL jurisdiction must not be used to damage the legitimate private interests of third parties who were not heard

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 4

M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 Section 100

Madhya Bharat Public Debt Act, 1953 Section 48

M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 Section 36

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 154

04Reasoning

The Supreme Court found that the High Court committed a manifest error by ordering the demolition of property without hearing the allottees, which violated their fundamental right to trade and the principles of natural justice

¶ 5.7

This constituted a patent error of law suitable for review

¶ 5.8

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that the High Court improperly entered a "titular dispute" between the Municipality and the State, which is beyond the scope of Article 226

¶ 6.4

Factually, the Court analyzed the authenticated maps and determined that the shops were located on the boundary of the Maidan, abutting a public road, and did not hinder the large open area reserved for the Dussehra festival

¶ 7.2-7.4

The Court noted that the PIL appeared to be motivated by oblique reasons rather than genuine public good

¶ 9