(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Hapur Pilakhua Development Authority, Hapur __________ Appellant
v.
M/s. Swantantra Bharat Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ____ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s). 2871 of 2010, decided on July 21, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material.
2. By the order under challenge in this appeal the High Court of Allahabad in a writ petition filed by the first respondent has set aside the order of resumption dated 20.09.2008 of land covered by plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and has restrained the respondents in the writ petition including the present appellant from interfering with the possession of the writ petitioners (respondents in this appeal) in respect of the said plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111 (except an area of .3410 hectares of plot No. 2149, which was acquired).
3. At the very outset it has to be noticed that the order of resumption dated 20.09.2008 was issued after the writ petition in question was filed and the challenge to the said order of resumption was by way of an amendment to the writ petition. The reliefs sought in the writ petition, as originally filed, is as follows:-
(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the Khewat/plot nos. 2136 and 2149 situated within the jurisdiction of Nagar palika Parishad, Pilakhua, Ghaziabad except the part of plot no. 2149 comprising area 3419 hectare, which was earlier acquired by the State Government by issuing notifications under Section 4 on 24.11.2005 and under Section 6 on 23.6.2006.
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over Khewat/plot nos. 2136 and 2149 situated within the jurisdiction of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilakhua, Ghaziabad except the part of plot no. 2149 comprising area 3410 hectare.
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to identify and demarcate the area, which was covered under the Notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.11.2005 and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.6.1006 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
(iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Award the cost of the writ petition throughout to the petitioners against the respondents.
(vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby calling the entire record of the proceedings and action taken by the respondents with regard to the demolition of the standing structure and unit of M/s. Swatantra Bharat Paper Mills on the land under Khasra no. 2136, 2149M and 2111/2 of village Pilakhua, Hapur and the process of alleged resumption of the subject land and thereafter quash the impugned order of resumption no. 3980/231/07-08 dated 20.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut with respect to the resumption of land of the petitioner falling under Khasra no. 2136 and 2149M under village Pilakhua within the Municipal Limit Pilakhua.
(vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to freeze all the amounts of the compensation/value of the land received in lien of the said land under resumption and acquisition including the land of the petitioner and not to disburse the same till the disposal of the present writ petition.
(viii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the respondents not to allow any activity on the subject land of the petitioner covered under the present writ petition and further to submit the inventory list of the assets removed under demolition and to account for the same.
4. The basis of the High Court’s Order in favour of the respondents-writ petitioners is a judgment and decree dated 03.08.1976 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad in Original Suit No. 179 of 1973.
5. The said suit filed by the respondents-writ petitioners was inter alia for a declaration of ownership/title in respect of land covered by plot No. 2111. While adjudicating the said suit, the learned trial Court had dealt with two adjacent plots i.e. plot nos. 2136 and 2149, which plots, as already noticed, was the subject matter of the instant writ petition. The finding of the learned trial Court in this regard is that the three plots are adjacent and were purchased by a common sale deed (Exhibit-14) dated 14.12.1950 by the vendors of the respondents-writ petitioners. The sale made in favour of the plaintiffs on 07.10.1953 was found to have vested title in the said plaintiffs (respondent-writ petitioner) and the claim of the State to the same effect was negatived. The aforesaid decree of the learned trial Court has also been affirmed by this Court and special leave petition No. 3062 of 2008 filed against the decree, as upheld by the High Court in S.A. No. 973 of 1999, has been dismissed by this Court on 18.02.2008.
6. Certain relevant facts which are on record would now require a specific notice. The first is that the respondents-writ petitioners, as plaintiffs, had instituted a separate suit i.e. Original Suit No. 155 of 2006 seeking a declaration of title in respect of three plots i.e. Plot Nos. 714, 2136 and 2149. The said suit was filed at a point of time anterior to filing of the writ petition. Though the connected records of the writ petition are not available, it would not be wrong to presume that the respondents-writ petitioners would have brought to the notice of the High Court that the aforesaid suit has been filed by them for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the same land as involved in the writ petition. Once the High Court was apprised of the said fact (which we have presumed was so done and if not so done the writ petition would have been liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of facts), the High Court ought not to have proceeded to test the validity of the resumption notice and the entitlement of the respondent-writ petitioners to the relief claimed inasmuch as the same hinged on the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the declaration of title to the land which was pending in Original Suit No. 155 of 2006. Not only the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the writ petition but passed an order which virtually compelled the learned trial Court hearing Civil Suit No. 155 of 2006 to decree the said suit in favour of the respondents-writ petitioners. This is because in the writ petition the High Court came to the finding that the title of the respondents-writ petitioners to the land covered by plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 stood concluded by the proceedings and the decree passed in Original Suit No. 179 of 1973, which however specifically pertained to plot No. 2111. It will not be necessary for us to adjudicate the question as to whether the findings recorded in the judgment delivered in Original Suit No. 179 of 1973 would operate as res judicata to the question of title of plot Nos. 2136 and 2149. It will be sufficient for the purpose of testing the validity of the High Court order to confine the area of scrutiny to the correctness on the part of the High Court to decide the writ petition at a stage when the Original Suit No. 155 of 2006 was pending and the effect of the decision rendered by the High Court in the said writ petition on the pending suit. Having considered the matter for the aforesaid limited perspective we arrive at the conclusion that the High Court was not right in proceeding to adjudicate the issues arising in the writ petition as the same virtually prejudged the reliefs sought in Original Suit No. 155 of 2006. The reliefs sought in the writ petition being based on a claim of title and a suit for declaration of such title being pending, the High Court ought not to have proceeded to determine the said issues in the writ petition in question.
7. In view of the above discussion, we take the view that the order of the High Court dated 06.07.2009 would merit our interference. We, accordingly, set aside the said order. However, we make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the legality of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 155 of 2006 and we also leave it open for the respondents-writ petitioners to resist the resumption order dated 20.09.2008 and such ancillary proceedings that may be initiated in respect of land covered by plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 in accordance with law by instituting appropriate proceedings before the competent Court. Consequently and in light of the above, we allow this appeal subject to our observations as above and set aside the order of the High Court dated 06.07.2009.
Civil Appeal No(s). 2871/2010
Hapur Pilakhua Devt. Auth. Hapur ______________________ Appellant
v.
M/s. Swantantra Bharat Paper Mil.P.Ld.&Ors __________ Respondent(s)
Date: 21/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M. C. Dhingra, Adv.
Ms. Gauri Rampal, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravindra Raizada, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
9. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
———
