N. Sankaranarayanan vs T.N. Housing Board

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)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

In Civil Appeal Nos.7390­7391 of 2009

Signature Not Verified

1. These appeals are directed against the final Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA

judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed by Date: 2019.01.31 16:58:07 IST Reason:

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 public­

spirited 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