The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, reaffirmed that while High Courts generally do not delve into disputed questions of fact in their writ jurisdiction, the mere existence of such disputes does not automatically bar the court from granting relief. This ruling was made in the case of M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 4526-4527 of 2024.

The Supreme Court observed:

“Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner.”

The Court further stated that when the State merely raises a dispute to reject a writ petition, it is the court's duty to examine the matter and grant relief if required in the interest of justice.

Read Also:- Supreme Court to Decide on Sanjiv Bhatt's Plea Against Life Sentence in 1990 Custodial Torture Case

Background of the Case

The appellant, M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation, engaged in the manufacture and sale of power transformers, had purchased land for its industrial operations. This land later became the subject of legal disputes under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

The appellant filed a declaration for utilizing excess land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and the government initially granted exemptions. However, these exemptions were later withdrawn, and the authorities directed the appellant to surrender excess vacant land. The issue centered on whether actual possession of the land had been taken by the government, as claimed by the authorities.

The appellant contended that:

• The government had merely taken symbolic possession and not actual physical possession.
• The official panchnama prepared by authorities was flawed and did not adhere to legal requirements.
• Notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act were improperly issued and violated statutory provisions.

The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that the government had not taken actual possession and that procedural lapses invalidated the possession claim.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Former Chhattisgarh Advocate General in NAN Scam Case

However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, holding that:

• There is no legal requirement under Section 10(6) for issuing a further notice before taking possession.
• The preparation of a panchnama is a legally acceptable method of establishing possession.
• The Single Judge erred in setting aside the panchnama merely because of alleged procedural defects.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that legal procedures are followed before land possession is claimed. The Court relied on previous judgments, including State of U.P. v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 and Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional Collector (2014) 12 SCC 523, which established that unless actual possession is taken before the Urban Land Ceiling Repeal Act, 1999, all proceedings abate.

“No doubt, in a writ proceeding between the State and a landholder, the Court can, on the basis of materials/evidence(s) placed on record, determine whether possession has been taken or not.”

The Court concluded that the issue of possession was a mixed question of law and fact. The judgment of the Single Judge, which had ruled in favor of the appellant, was reinstated, declaring that possession had not been lawfully transferred to the government.

This ruling holds immense importance as it clarifies:

• The scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in cases involving disputed questions of fact.
• That High Courts are not automatically barred from granting relief merely because the government claims a factual dispute.
• That the procedural integrity of land acquisition and possession must be strictly followed.

Case Name: M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4526-4527 OF 2024