Supreme Court of India
N. SANKARANARAYANAN versus THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS. on 31 January 2019
820
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
A
N. SANKARANARAYANAN
v.
THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7390-7391 of 2009)
JANUARY 31, 2019
B
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Writ petition –Maintainability of – Writ petition by the appellant to settle hispersonal property rights disputes qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3-Cmembers of the family – Held: Such Writ petition cannot beentertained – Remedy in such case lies in civil courts – Disputesought to be raised by the appellant was essentially a privateproperty dispute between the members of one family of which theappellant and respondent No. 2 are the members – By indirect means,Da dispute inter se private parties of the nature mentioned could notbe allowed to be raised in the Writ petition u/Art. 226/227 for seekingissuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities in relationto the properties – Moreso, Writ petition was not filed in the capacityof a public spirited person.
EDismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at bythe Division Bench in the impugned order is concurred with. Thewrit petition filed by the appellant was wholly misconceived. TheDivision Bench rightly observed that the dispute sought to beraised by the appellant in his writ petition was essentially a privateFproperty dispute between the members of one family of whichthe appellant and respondent No. 2 are the members. By indirectmeans such as the one resorted to by the writ petitioner (appellant)by filing the writ petition, a dispute inter se private parties of thenature mentioned could not be allowed to be raised in the writGpetition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for seekingissuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities inrelation to the properties in question. [Paras 14, 15, 16][824-G-H;825-A-C]
1.2 The appellant did not file the writ petition in his capacityas public-spirited person, i.e., Public Interest Litigation (PIL). ItH
was, on the other hand, a writ petition was filed by the appellantessentially to settle his personal property rights disputes quarespondent Nos. 2 and 3. No writ petition can be entertained forissuance of any writ against any private individual in respect ofany private property dispute. The remedy in such case lies incivil courts. [Para 17][825-C-D]
1.3 The questions such as, who is the owner of the land inquestion, the appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other memberof their family, whether the land in question was let out byrespondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and, if so, when, why andfor 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 ofsettlement in relation to the land in question inter se members ofthe family, whether it was breached or not and, if so, by whom,what activities are being carried on the said land and, if so, bywhom, whether such activities are legal or illegal etc. are not thequestions which can be raised by any private individual againstother private individual in the writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. [Para 18][825-E-F]
1.4 Even if the writ petitioner did not raise pointedly thesequestions for claiming reliefs in the writ petition yet, suchquestions have a material bearing while considering the grant ofreliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. [Para19][825-G]
1.5 Some proceedings are pending before the Company LawBoard between the parties in relation to their private propertydisputes. If that be so, the parties to such proceedings have toprosecute the proceedings before CLB in accordance with lawfor obtaining appropriate reliefs. [Para 20][825-G-H; 826-A]
1.6 It is not possible to express any opinion on merits forwant of jurisdiction. The parties, would be at liberty to takerecourse to all judicial remedies, as may be available to them inlaw, for adjudication of their respective grievances in appropriatejudicial forum against each other. It is left for the State authoritiesto act against any such person(s) in accordance with law. [Paras22, 23][826-B, C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7390-7391 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2008 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1499 of 2005 and Writ PetitionNo. 5718 of 2005.
BWITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 7405-7406 of 2009.
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Prabha Swami, Nikhil Swami,Ms. Divya Swami, M/S. Ap & J Chambers, S.Gowthaman, V.Prabhakar,Ms. Jyoti Parashar, N.J. Ramchandar, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, RajeshCKumar, S. Thananjayan, Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, Sri Ram J.Thalapathy, Shilp Vinod, Pushkin Rajkumar, S. Rajappa, C.Paramasivam,Vinodh Kanna B., T. Harish Kumar, Mrs. Prabha Swami, Nikhil Swami,Ms. Divya Swami, B.Balaji, Sriram P., K.V.Vijaya Kumar, Ms. PurbitaaMitra, R.Naresh Raj, B.Vinodh Kanna, Advs. for the appearing parties.
DThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
In Civil Appeal Nos.7390-7391 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderEdated 04.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras inWrit Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.5718 of 2005 wherebythe Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal and thewrit 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.F
3. The appellant herein is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1499 of2005 and writ petitioner in W.P. No. 5718 of 2005 whereas respondentNos. 1 to 6 herein are the respondents of the said writ appeal and thewrit petition out of which these appeals arise.
4. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Single Judge passed an interimorder dated 07.03.2005. The appellant herein (writ petitioner) feltaggrieved by the said interim order and filed intra court appeal beforethe Division Bench.
G
5. The Division Bench, with the consent of the parties, decidedthe main writ petition itself on merits and finding no merit therein dismissed H
N. SANKARANARAYANAN v. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADUHOUSING BOARD [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
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 bythe 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 findingsof 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 carriedin these appeals at the instance of the writ petitioner (appellant herein),is essentially between the members of one family whose ancestor wasLate S. Narayanapillai. He died leaving behind six sons. Late S.Narayanapillai owned several properties which, on his death, wereinherited by his legal representatives.
7. The disputes arose between the members of the family ofLate S. Narayanapillai on his death. In order to resolve the disputes, themembers of the family, therefore, executed one memorandum ofunderstanding on 24.09.1998 in relation to their family properties.Unfortunately, the disputes did not come to an end and, on the otherhand, persisted amongst them, which led to filing of the cases in theCompany Law Board by some members against the other and also thewrit petition in question by the appellant herein.
8. The dispute, which is subject matter of the writ petition out ofwhich these appeals arise, centers around to the land which is situated ina scheme known as “Ashok Nagar Scheme” in Chennai. The dispute isbetween the appellant, who is one of the members of the family andrespondent No. 2, which is a Private Limited Company formed by anothermember 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 ona portion of the land in question and has also let out its part to respondentNo. 3 who, in turn, is using the same as marriage hall for public underthe name “Udayam Kalyana Mandapam”. This act of respondent No. 2is being objected to by the appellant amongst them.
10. It is with these background facts and the grievance, which iselaborated, the appellant filed a writ petition and sought therein a relieffor issuance of a writ of mandamus against the State authorities namely,Tamil Nadu Housing Board (R-1), Chennai City Municipal Corporation(R-4) and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (R- 5) directingthem jointly and severally to take appropriate action in law against A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ARespondent Nos. 2 and 3 and restrain them from continuing with theiractivities on the land. According to the appellant, the activities undertakenby respondent No. 3 on the land in question are illegal, hazardous andagainst the public safety inasmuch as they are being carried in violationof several provisions of the laws in force.
B11. As mentioned above, the Division Bench dismissed the writpetition finding no merit therein with the following reasons in Para 17,which reads as under:
“17. A perusal of the records produced before this Courtleaves no iota of doubt that principally the dispute nowCraised before this Court is a private dispute between thevarious family members having contesting the claims to beon the Board apart from those relating to the affairs of theCompany. It is an admitted fact that the company is a closelyheld company by a family members of six brothers. Thepresent dispute is nothing but a trial for the show of theirDrespective strength to each other herein. A petition beforethe Company Law Board is pending consideration asregards the continuance of the directorship of Mr.Muthusami. Whatever be the merits of the petition beforethe Company Law Board, taking note of the variousEcontentions, which included a dispute with reference to thearea occupied by the Theatre and the construction of themandapam and the petrol pump, this Court in the orderpassed on 19.9.2007 in C.M.A. No.1900 of 2007 has rightlydirected the Company Law Board to dispose of the mainpetition by 31.1.2008.”F12. The question, which arises for consideration in these appeals,is whether the Division Bench was justified in dismissing the appellant’swrit petition on the aforementioned reasoning.
13. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord of the case. Having heard the learned counsel, we are inclined toGagree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the DivisionBench in the impugned order.
14. In our considered opinion also, the writ petition filed by theappellant was wholly misconceived and deserved dismissal at thethreshold.H
N. SANKARANARAYANAN v. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADUHOUSING BOARD [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
15. As rightly observed by the Division Bench, the dispute soughtto be raised by the appellant in his writ petition was essentially a privateproperty dispute between the members of one family of which the appellantand respondent No. 2 are the members.
16. By indirect means such as the one resorted to by the writpetitioner (appellant herein) by filing the writ petition, a dispute inter seprivate parties of the nature mentioned above could not be allowed to beraised in the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution forseeking issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities inrelation to the properties in question.
17. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not file the writ petitionin 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 appellantessentially to settle his personal property rights disputes qua respondentNos. 2 and 3. It is a settled law that no writ petition can be entertainedfor issuance of any writ against any private individual in respect of anyprivate 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 respondentNo. 2 or any other member of their family, whether the land in questionwas 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), whatwas the arrangements, if any, made in the memorandum of settlementin relation to the land in question inter se members of the family, whetherit was breached or not and, if so, by whom, what activities are beingcarried on the said land and, if so, by whom, whether such activities arelegal or illegal etc. are not the questions which can be raised by anyprivate individual against other private individual in the writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution.
19. Even if the writ petitioner did not raise pointedly these questionsfor claiming reliefs in the writ petition yet, in our view, such questionshave a material bearing while considering the grant of reliefs claimed bythe writ petitioner in the writ petition.
20. It is not in dispute that some proceedings are pending beforethe Company Law Board between the parties in relation to their privateproperty disputes. If that be so, the parties to such proceedings have to A
B
CD
E
F
G
H
Aprosecute the proceedings before CLB in accordance with law forobtaining appropriate reliefs.
21. Before parting, we consider it apposite to mention that wehave not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Rather, it isnot possible to express any opinion for want of jurisdiction. The parties,Btherefore, will be at liberty to take recourse to all judicial remedies, asmay be available to them in law, for adjudication of their respectivegrievances in appropriate judicial forum against each other.
22. Similarly, it is for the State authorities to see as to whether anyperson(s) has/have contravened or/and is/are contravening anyCprovision(s) of any Act or Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes inany manner while using the properties and, if so, what action is calledfor 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 andleave it for the State authorities to act against any such person(s) inaccordance with law.D
23. We also make it clear that all such disputes between the partiesconcerned on its merits will be decided strictly in accordance with lawby the Court/Tribunal/Authority, as the case may be, uninfluenced byany observation made by the High Court in the impugned order and bythis Court in this order.
E
24. In the light of the foregoing discussion and with theaforementioned observations and the liberty, we find no merit in theseappeals. The appeals thus fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim order,if any, passed stands vacated.
In Civil Appeal Nos.7405-7406 of 2009F
These appeals are filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petitionand the writ appeal against the final judgment and order dated 04.03.2008passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.1499 of2005 and W.P. No.5718 of 2005.
In view of the order passed above in CA Nos.7390-7391 of 2009,these appeals are also dismissed.
G
Nidhi Jain
Appeals dismissed.
H