2007 (4) TMI 685 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the sale-deed is legal and the same has been executed by the Petitioners or the same is false and fabricated cannot be decided in this proceedings initiated by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

Summary

Issues:
1. Order of preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act and forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA.
2. Dispute over ownership and transfer of properties.
3. Handwriting expert's opinion and admission of execution of sale deed.
4. Division Bench's refusal to grant permission to withdraw appeal.
5. Allegations of misrepresentation and forged documents.
6. Jurisdiction of the appellate court and access to justice.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was subjected to preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act and had his properties forfeited under SAFEMA. After a series of legal proceedings, including a Writ Petition and Special Leave Petition, the competent authority canceled the order of forfeiture of properties. However, a dispute arose regarding the return of immovable properties, leading to a Writ Petition being filed by the appellant. The High Court dismissed the petition citing disputed questions of fact and advised the appellant to seek relief from the appropriate forum.

2. The High Court's judgment highlighted the dispute over the ownership and transfer of properties. Respondent No. 4 claimed that the appellant had transferred the property in question to him, while the appellant denied such transfer, alleging forgery and illegal transfer behind his back. The court observed that the case involved disputed questions of fact, particularly regarding the validity of a registered sale deed, which could not be conclusively decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. A handwriting expert's opinion raised doubts about the authenticity of signatures on certain documents, leading to the appellant allegedly admitting to executing a sale deed in favor of respondent No. 4. However, the appellant's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal, reserving the right to pursue other remedies. The Division Bench, despite granting permission to withdraw the appeal, refused to do so, emphasizing the seriousness of the matter and the need to decide the appeal on its merits.

4. The Division Bench's refusal to grant permission to withdraw the appeal was challenged by the appellant, contending that the order placed him in a worse position and that he should have the right to seek relief from an appropriate forum. The respondent argued that the appellant had made misrepresentations and submitted forged documents before the court, and having admitted to executing the sale deed, should not be allowed to litigate further.

5. Allegations of misrepresentation and submission of forged documents were made by the respondent against the appellant, which were denied and disputed by the appellant in response. The court noted the lack of specific orders or proceedings initiated regarding the handwriting expert's report or any criminal action under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The judgment emphasized the importance of access to justice as a fundamental right, citing precedents that upheld the jurisdiction of civil courts in determining civil disputes unless expressly barred by statute. The court underscored the need for fair trial procedures and the right to a fair trial as a basic human right, emphasizing the importance of allowing parties to seek remedies through appropriate legal forums.