LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Sunday, February 3, 2019

N. Sankaranarayanan ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7390­7391 OF 2009
N. Sankaranarayanan     ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7405­7406  OF 2009
Aruna Theatres & Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd.     ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
In Civil Appeal  Nos.7390­7391 of 2009
1. These appeals are directed against  the final
judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed by
1
the   High  Court   of   Judicature   at   Madras   in  Writ
Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.5718
of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High
Court     dismissed   the   writ   appeal   and   the   writ
petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved
in   these   appeals,   it   is   necessary   to   set   out   few
relevant facts hereinbelow.
3. The appellant herein is the appellant in Writ
Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and writ petitioner in W.P.
No. 5718 of 2005 whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 6
herein are the respondents of the said  writ appeal
and the writ petition out of which these appeals
arise.
4. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Single Judge
passed   an   interim   order   dated   07.03.2005.   The
appellant herein (writ petitioner) felt aggrieved by
the said interim order and filed intra court appeal
before the Division Bench.
2
5.  The Division Bench,  with the consent of the
parties,   decided   the   main   writ   petition   itself   on
merits and finding no merit therein dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant herein by the
impugned order, which has given rise to filing of
these appeals by way of special leave by the writ
petitioner in this Court.
6. On perusal of the list of dates, special leave
petitions, writ petition, its counter, the documents
enclosed in the appeal and lastly, the findings of the
Division Bench in the impugned order, it is clear
that the dispute, which was subject matter of the
writ   petition   and   which   is   now   carried   in   these
appeals   at   the   instance   of   the   writ   petitioner
(appellant   herein),   is   essentially   between   the
members of one family whose ancestor was Late S.
Narayanapillai.   He   died   leaving   behind   six   sons.
Late   S.   Narayanapillai   owned   several   properties
3
which,  on  his   death,   were  inherited  by  his  legal
representatives. 
7.   The disputes arose between the members of
the family of Late S. Narayanapillai on his death.  In
order to resolve the disputes, the members of the
family,   therefore,   executed   one   memorandum   of
understanding on 24.09.1998 in relation to their
family properties. Unfortunately, the disputes did
not   come   to   an   end   and,   on   the   other   hand,
persisted amongst them, which led to filing of the
cases in the Company Law Board by some members
against   the   other   and   also   the   writ   petition   in
question by the appellant herein.
8. The dispute, which is subject matter of the
writ   petition   out   of   which   these   appeals   arise,
centers around to the land which is situated in a
scheme   known   as   "Ashok   Nagar   Scheme"   in
Chennai. The dispute is between the appellant,  who
is one of the members of the family and respondent
4
No. 2, which is a Private  Limited Company formed
by another member of the family.
9. One of the grievances of the appellant against
respondent   No.   2   in   the   writ   petition   is   that
respondent no 2 is running a petrol pump on a
portion of the land in question and has also let out
its part to respondent No. 3 who, in turn, is using
the same   as marriage hall for public under the
name   "Udayam   Kalyana   Mandapam".   This   act   of
respondent   No.   2   is   being   objected   to   by   the
appellant amongst them.
10.      It is with these background facts and the
grievance,  which is elaborated, the appellant filed a
writ petition and sought therein a relief for issuance
of a writ of mandamus against the State authorities
namely,  Tamil Nadu Housing Board (R­1), Chennai
City   Municipal   Corporation   (R­4)   and   Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority (R­ 5) directing
them jointly and severally to take appropriate action
5
in   law   against   Respondent   Nos.   2   and   3   and
restrain them from continuing with their activities
on   the   land.   According   to   the   appellant,     the
activities undertaken by respondent No. 3 on the
land in question are illegal, hazardous and against
the public safety inasmuch as they are being carried
in violation of several provisions of the laws in force.
11. As   mentioned   above,   the   Division   Bench
dismissed the writ petition finding no merit therein
with the following reasons in Para 17, which reads
as under: 
“17.  A perusal of the records produced
before   this   Court   leaves   no   iota   of
doubt  that principally the  dispute  now
raised   before   this   Court   is   a   private
dispute   between   the   various   family
members  having  contesting  the  claims
to   be   on   the   Board   apart   from   those
relating to the affairs of the Company.
It is an admitted fact that the company
is  a  closely  held  company  by  a   family
members  of  six  brothers.    The  present
dispute   is   nothing   but   a   trial   for   the
show   of   their   respective   strength   to
each   other   herein.     A   petition   before
the   Company   Law   Board   is   pending
consideration   as   regards   the
continuance  of  the  directorship  of  Mr.
6
Muthusami.   Whatever be the merits of
the   petition   before   the   Company   Law
Board,   taking   note   of   the   various
contentions,   which   included   a  dispute
with reference to the area occupied by
the Theatre and the construction of the
mandapam   and   the   petrol   pump,   this
Court in the order passed on 19.9.2007
in  C.M.A.  No.1900  of  2007  has  rightly
directed   the   Company   Law   Board   to
dispose   of   the   main   petition   by
31.1.2008.”
 
12. The question, which arises for consideration in
these appeals, is whether the Division Bench was
justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition
on the aforementioned reasoning.
13. We heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record of the case. Having heard
the learned counsel, we are inclined to agree with
the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
Division Bench in the impugned order.
14. In   our   considered   opinion   also,   the   writ
petition   filed   by   the   appellant   was   wholly
misconceived   and   deserved   dismissal   at   the
threshold.
7
15.  As rightly observed by the Division Bench, the
dispute sought to be raised by the appellant in his
writ   petition   was   essentially   a   private   property
dispute between the members of one family of which
the   appellant   and     respondent   No.   2   are   the
members.
16.  By indirect means such as the one resorted to
by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) by filing the
writ petition, a dispute inter se private parties of the
nature mentioned above could not be allowed to be
raised in the writ petition under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution for seeking issuance of mandamus
against the State and its authorities in relation to
the properties in question.
17. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not
file   the   writ   petition   in   his   capacity   as   publicspirited person, i.e., Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
It was, on the other hand, a writ petition was filed
by the appellant essentially to settle his personal
8
property rights disputes qua respondent Nos. 2 and
3. It is a settled law that no writ petition can be
entertained   for   issuance   of   any   writ   against   any
private individual in respect of any private property
dispute.   The   remedy   in   such   case   lies   in   civil
Courts.
18. In   other  words,  it   is  a   settled   law  that  the
questions such as,  who is the owner of the land in
question,  the appellant or respondent No. 2 or any
other member of their family, whether the land in
question   was   let   out   by   respondent   No.   2   to
respondent No. 3 and,   if so,   when, why and for
what purpose, who had the right to let out the said
land (appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other
member of the family), what was the arrangements,
if any, made in the memorandum of settlement  in
relation to the land in question inter se members of
the family, whether it was breached or not  and,  if
so,   by whom, what activities are being carried on
9
the said land and, if so,   by whom, whether such
activities   are   legal   or   illegal   etc.   are   not   the
questions   which   can   be   raised   by   any   private
individual   against   other   private   individual   in   the
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
19. Even   if   the   writ   petitioner   did   not   raise
pointedly these questions for claiming reliefs in the
writ petition yet,  in our view,  such questions have
a material bearing while considering the grant of
reliefs   claimed   by   the   writ   petitioner   in   the   writ
petition.
20. It is not in dispute that some proceedings are
pending before the Company Law Board between
the   parties   in   relation   to   their   private   property
disputes.   If   that   be   so,     the   parties   to     such
proceedings   have   to   prosecute   the   proceedings
before CLB in  accordance with  law for obtaining
appropriate reliefs.
10
21. Before   parting,   we   consider   it   apposite   to
mention that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case. Rather,  it is not possible to
express any opinion for want of jurisdiction. The
parties,  therefore,  will be at liberty to take recourse
to all judicial remedies, as may be available to them
in   law,   for   adjudication   of   their   respective
grievances   in   appropriate   judicial   forum   against
each other.
22. Similarly, it is for the State authorities to see
as to whether any person(s) has/have contravened
or/and is/are contravening any provision(s) of any
Act or Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes in
any manner while using the properties and, if so,
what   action   is   called   for  qua  such   persons   and
against the activities carried on by such person(s) in
law.  We,   however,   express no opinion on any of
these issues and leave it for the State  authorities to
11
act against any such person(s) in accordance with
law.
23. We also make it clear that all such disputes
between the parties concerned on its merits will be
decided   strictly   in   accordance   with   law   by   the
Court/Tribunal/Authority,     as   the   case   may   be,
uninfluenced by any observation made by the High
Court in the impugned order and by this Court in
this order.
24. In the  light  of  the foregoing discussion and
with   the   aforementioned   observations   and   the
liberty,   we   find   no   merit   in   these   appeals.   The
appeals thus fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim
order,  if any,  passed stands vacated.
In Civil Appeal  Nos.7405­7406 of 2009
These appeals are filed by respondent No.2 in
the writ petition and the writ appeal against the
final judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed
12
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.
No.1499 of 2005 and W.P. No.5718 of 2005.
In   view   of   the   order   passed   above   in   CA
Nos.7390­7391   of   2009,   these   appeals   are   also
dismissed.
         ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                 
       
....……..................................J.
        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
January 31, 2019.
13