The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of a disputed question of fact does not bar the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. If the State raises disputes merely to justify rejecting a writ petition, the court must dismiss such objections. The ruling reinforces the High Court’s power to intervene in cases of constitutional rights violations. This ensures that legal remedies are not denied on technical grounds.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of disputed questions of fact in a case does not preclude a High Court from granting appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A bench consisting of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan noted that it is a common argument used by the State to suggest that the High Court should refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction due to these disputes.
However, the Court emphasized that if the State presents such arguments solely as a reason to dismiss a plea, the writ court must examine the disputed facts and document its findings based on the available evidence.
The justices clarified,
“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 does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner.”
The bench further asserted that there is no indication in Article 226 that the High Court is barred from conducting such inquiries.
They added,
“The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court,”
The Court clarified that the determination depends on the nature of the factual questions involved.
These observations were made in relation to two appeals filed by AP Electrical Equipment Corporation, which challenged a 2022 judgment from the High Court of Telangana and Hyderabad. The company, which manufactures and sells electrical equipment, had purchased 163,764 square yards of land in Fatehnagar village, Rangareddy district.
After the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act), the company filed a declaration regarding its land holdings, with a portion exempt from ceiling laws. However, the State later revoked some exemptions, citing the company’s failure to construct housing units for weaker sections as required by the exemption conditions.
The government declared the land surplus, and acquisition proceedings were initiated, reportedly taking possession through a panchnama in February 2008. The company contested the acquisition, arguing that actual possession was never taken and that the documents were fabricated following the repeal of the ULC Act in 1999.
Initially, a single-judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the company, stating that the government failed to follow due process, and that the panchnama was backdated and fabricated. The State then appealed this decision. A Division Bench of the High Court reversed the single-judge ruling, asserting that the acquisition notices were valid and that possession was legally taken.
Dissatisfied with this judgment, the company approached the Supreme Court. The top court found that the State had not adequately established proper service of the required notices, rendering the acquisition invalid. It also questioned the credibility of the possession records and disputed the High Court’s assertion that obtaining the landowner’s signature on the panchnama was not necessary.
Also Read: [Punjab Judicial Service] Supreme Court Rejects Re-Evaluation Request for Mains Exam
The Court stated,
“When State Authorities try to take law into their own hands and rely on bogus paper panchnamas to assert that actual physical possession was taken before the repeal, it is imperative that the signature of the landowner must be obtained to lend authenticity to such actions,”
Additionally, the Court criticized the language used by the High Court Division Bench, which described the single judge’s ruling as “shockingly” erroneous, questioning the appropriateness of such terminology in a writ appeal context.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the Division Bench’s order, and restored the single-judge’s ruling.
Case Title: M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
