LI Network
Published on: October 14, 2023 at 19:33 IST
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court addressed the issue of when the High Court should relegate parties to alternative remedies in cases involving serious factual disputes.
The Court emphasized that relegate to an alternative remedy should be considered when there is a significant dispute between the parties on a matter of fact, and the available evidence on record is insufficient or inconclusive to arrive at a clear conclusion.
However, the Court also noted that the presence of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, further explained that when a writ petition has been entertained, and parties have exchanged their pleadings and affidavits, the matter has remained pending for an extended period, sincere efforts should be made to decide the matter on its merits rather than relegate the writ petitioner to an alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
The case in question involved a dispute over the possession of surplus land. The State claimed that physical possession of the surplus land was taken in 1979 after serving notice under the Ceiling Act, while the first respondent, Ehsan, contended that actual possession was never taken despite the State’s claim on paper.
The High Court had previously refrained from deciding this contentious issue on two occasions, but in its third writ petition, it ruled in favor of the first respondent, stating that the land should not be treated as surplus land and should remain in his possession.
The main question before the Court was whether the High Court should have avoided deciding the issue of actual possession in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, given that it was not decided in the previous rounds of litigation even though it had arisen for consideration.
The case’s background revealed a lengthy legal process dating back to 1977, involving multiple rounds of litigation.
The Court observed that neither the order declaring the land as surplus nor the notification vesting the land in the State had been set aside or declared invalid. Additionally, the issue of possession, critical for determining the parties’ rights, was not resolved in previous litigation.
The Court’s decision emphasized that relegate to an alternative remedy is appropriate when there is a serious dispute on a question of fact, and the available evidence is insufficient to reach a clear conclusion. In this case, the Court examined whether the first respondent had an alternative remedy to file a suit for protecting his rights over the disputed land.
The Court noted that the first respondent had knowledge of the land’s surplus declaration in 1977 but chose to challenge it through a writ petition in 1986. The Court also found it intriguing that there was no specific statement challenging the Competent Authority’s order regarding possession in the third writ petition.
Considering the State’s submissions, the Court pointed out that possession of the surplus land was taken in 1979, and even if the first respondent had entered into possession afterward, it would not defeat the State’s rights. The Court cited a previous judgment to support this position, emphasizing that once land vests in the State, the landholder’s possession would be on behalf of the State.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations were made solely to determine whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition. If a suit is instituted, it would be decided on its merits.
The Court considered the serious dispute about possession, the delay in filing the first writ petition, and the High Court’s previous avoidance of the possession issue in its decision. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and held that the writ petitioner should have been relegated to a suit.
