Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Karam Singh vs Collector, Kurukshetra District and another

Supreme Court7 January 1992M.H. Kania · R.M. Sahai

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a writ petition, it is not precluded from examining questions of ownership merely because those questions are disputed; the existence of competing claims to ownership does not render such questions unsuitable for determination in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly where the ownership has been adjudicated by decree in civil proceedings. The disposal of a writ petition challenging orders passed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 requires the High Court to consider and apply the provisions of that Act in determining the validity of the impugned administrative orders.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The dismissal of the writ petition is based on the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench that whether the appellant or his predecessor-in-interest Smt. Jeevani were in possession of the suit property authorised or otherwise is a disputed question of fact between the parties and that the said question had received the attention of the Assistant Collector and the Collector in appeal. It was held that it was not open to the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to go into the disputed questions of fact and it was hence that the writ petition was dismissed. We find that in the judgment it is stated that the said Smt. Jeevani had Tiled a suit for declaration regarding her ownership against the (sic) Panchyat which is the contesting respondent herein and obtained a decree in her favour on October 20, 1965. The petitioner has obtained a decree against Smt. Jeevani in respect of the ownership of the said land. In these circumstances, without any further facts, we find it difficult to accept the view of the High Court that there were disputed questions of fact as to the ownership of the suit land which could, not be decided in a writ petition. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and remand the writ petition to the High Court for disposal according to law. We find that in the disposal of the writ petition several provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 will have to be considered and the High Court will naturally dispose of the writ petition after taking the same into consideration. The High Court may dispose of the writ petition as early as possible. For a period of four months from today, the possession of the appellant will not be disturbed pursuant to the impugned orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector. Thereafter, it will be for the High Court to pass appropriate interim orders. The appeal is allowed as aforestated. There will be no order as to costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free