2012 (9) TMI 925 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Respondents should be permitted to complete the remaining work on the land and the petitioner should be left with the option of raising a claim before the appropriate forum for such loss and compensation, if any, to which he may be entitled to in law?

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and title of the land in question.
2. Easementary rights of the residents.
3. Legality of the developmental works undertaken by the respondents.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Appropriate remedy for the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Title of the Land in Question:
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, claimed ownership of a piece of land measuring about 19250 sq.mtrs. in Miramar, Goa, based on a registered deed dated 16th November 1977. The petitioner argued that the right, title, and interest in the said land were undisputedly vested in them, as evidenced by previous legal proceedings where no issue regarding the title was raised. The petitioner also highlighted that they were treated as the absolute owner during a land acquisition proceeding in 1990.

The respondents, however, contended that the petitioner had ceased to be the legal owner of the land, citing the decision in Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which stated that the petitioner held the land as a trustee for the benefit of the residents and the public at large. The Municipal Corporation, Panaji, claimed that the land had vested in it, although it failed to provide details on how such vesting occurred.

2. Easementary Rights of the Residents:
The residents, represented by the Model Cooperative Housing Society, claimed easementary rights over the entire vacant/open space of 19250 sq.mtrs. They argued that the open space was meant to ensure light, ventilation, and recreational facilities for the residents, as represented in the brochures during the development of the housing colony. This claim was upheld by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Suit No. 1/B of 1981 and L.P.A. No. 26/83, which decreed that the land should remain open and free from construction.

3. Legality of the Developmental Works Undertaken by the Respondents:
The petitioner challenged the developmental works undertaken on the land, which included projects like jogging tracks, walkways, and recreational centers, initiated without acquiring the land. The petitioner argued that these actions violated a Government Order dated 30th June 2010, which stipulated that tenders should not be issued unless the land was acquired. The respondents, including the Government of Goa and the Corporation of the City of Panaji, justified the developmental works, stating that the land had become a dumping ground and needed to be developed for public benefit. They argued that the petitioner had failed to develop the open space, necessitating government intervention.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The High Court refused to interdict the developmental works, suggesting that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy, i.e., a suit for injunction. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court under Article 226 is empowered to interdict state actions detrimental to citizens' rights, it may refuse to interfere if the case involves disputed questions of fact or title. However, the Supreme Court noted that there is no universal rule barring the Writ Court from entertaining disputes involving contested facts, citing precedents where the High Court has jurisdiction to determine such issues.

5. Appropriate Remedy for the Petitioner:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order was not tenable in law as it failed to undertake a deeper probe into the claims of the parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have satisfied itself that there was a serious dispute regarding ownership or title before relegating the petitioner to a civil suit. Given the limited rights of the petitioner and the nature of the developmental works, the Supreme Court allowed the respondents to complete the remaining work on the land. The petitioner was left with the option of raising a claim for loss and compensation before the appropriate forum, without any expression of opinion from the Court on the petitioner's ownership or other rights.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeal by permitting the respondents to complete the developmental works and allowing the petitioner to seek compensation, if any, through appropriate legal channels. The judgment emphasized the need for a thorough judicial process in determining disputed questions of fact and title under Article 226 of the Constitution.

← Previous Next →