Read Time: 09 minutes
The Patna High Court has observed that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a correct forum for adjudication of disputes relating to title.
A single bench of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh while dismissing the writ application seeking a direction to the State respondents for restoration of their possession over a two-storey building standing over several plot's of land.
The facts of the present case date back to 2014, when one Maulvi Mahmood Alam and Md. Safiruddin through registered sale deeds no. 1700 and 1701 the aforesaid plots appertaining to Khata No. 122 was transferred in the name of one Manbhari Kuar, the grandmother of petitioner no. 1.
“The land was mutated in her name and she started paying rent, which was paid up to the year 2020-21. A land possession certificate was also issued in her name by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran. After the death of Manbhari Kuar in 1948, father of petitioner no. 1 came into possession over the plots and in 1965, he constructed a two-storey building over the plots, which he would rent for seminars and marriages etc. The father of petitioner no. 1 (Murlidhar Sureka) died in 1978 whereafter petitioner no. 1 took over the said property. 3.” – stated the application.
The petitioner contends that there existed no Dharamshala over the said property and that the building is still known as Marwari Vivah Bhawan. “To strengthen their case, the petitioners have asserted that the writ application was filed before this Court giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 8048 of 2015 for closure of all the marriage halls, as they were causing pollution in the locality. Petitioner no. 1 was impleaded as respondent no. 24 in the said writ application. Subsequently by an order dated 06.04.2016, the Bihar State Pollution Control Board had asked the petitioner to close the marriage halls with immediate effect and the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11.04.2016 recording therein that no marriage halls should be operated within the municipal limits of Motihari, Nagar Parishad except in accordance with law. The marriage hall is closed since 2016.”
On the other hand the learned counsel for respondent states that, Md., “while opposing the reliefs sought for in the present writ application has submitted that the petitioners’ claim of title and right to occupy the premises in question, cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in numerous cases.”
Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case the bench relied upon the SC decision in the case Union of India and Others v. Ghaus Mohammad (AIR 1961 SC 1526) and D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Limited v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others (AIR 1976 SC 386) observing that,
“…since it has been repeatedly held in judicial pronouncements that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a correct forum for adjudication of disputes relating to title, no relief, as sought for by the petitioners in the present case can be granted. This is because the relief, which the petitioners are seeking, cannot be granted without recording a finding of fact that the petitioners were in possession over the premises in question at the relevant point of time, as asserted in the writ application. Further, this Court in the present proceeding cannot record a finding of title of petitioner no. 1 over the said premises. Apparently, there exists dispute in respect of title which is evident from the pleadings on record inasmuch as a suit is pending and the Board has already declared the premises to be a public trust.”
Hence, while dismissing the present writ application of the petitioner on the ground that it has no merits the court observed that,
“It is made clear that I have not gone into the merit of the claims of these petitioners in respect of their title or occupation in respect of the premises in question and, therefore, any observation made in the present order should not be treated as an opinion on the merit of respective claims of the parties. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum for adjudication of their claims in appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.”
Case title: Nawal Kishore Sureka & ors. v State of Bihar,2021
Law point: Article 226 0f the Indian Constitution
Please Login or Register
