LI Network
Published on: 28 August 2023 at 12:07 IST
The Supreme Court has upheld a judgment by the Orissa High Court in a land dispute involving the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa (IDCO) and the heirs of a late Surgeon Vice Admiral.
The Vice Admiral had filed a writ petition against the State of Orissa and IDCO in the Orissa High Court.
The State challenged the High Court’s decision, claiming that it had made findings on disputed facts that exceeded its writ jurisdiction.
A division bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed the appeal, asserting that the High Court had not exceeded its jurisdiction.
“The State’s objection against the impugned Judgment is that the High Court has decided disputed questions of facts. After perusing the Judgment, we consider that the High Court recorded a finding not by deciding a fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement but from the record and admitted documents. The solitary ground raised against the impugned Judgment, therefore, deserves to be rejected,” the Supreme Court stated.
The dispute centered around a 4.800-acre plot of land assigned to the Vice Admiral by the government under a policy for his participation in the Indo-China war. Simultaneously, the State requested the Tehsildar to process the land’s alienation as identified by IDCO.
The Vice Admiral subsequently approached the High Court seeking to prevent the State from interfering with his lawful possession and enjoyment of the property, as well as to restrain the continuation of resumption proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar.
The Apex Court observed, “From the record, it appears that the alienation of land in favour of IDCO commenced on the request of IDCO of identified land but not after verifying whether Government land claimed by the State is free from encumbrances and available for assignment.”
The High Court had deemed the identification of the land and the resumption proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar to be unlawful.
The court also affirmed that the land leased to the petitioner had been properly identified.
Advocates Subhasish Mohanty and Jana Kalyan Das represented the State of Orissa and IDCO, respectively, arguing that the High Court had ventured into determining disputed facts, which was not within its writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the High Court’s decision was based on documents issued by the respondents and did not involve adjudicating disputed facts.
The Supreme Court examined the sequence of events, including land assignment and subsequent claims by IDCO and the State.
It concluded that the High Court’s decision was grounded in documented evidence rather than disputed facts.
The Court deemed the State’s objections on these grounds unwarranted and found the State’s method of dispossessing the petitioner unconstitutional and illegal.
“By issuing the Resumption Notice, the Tahsildar admitted Writ Petitioner’s possession of the petition land. It is evident from the record that even before initiating proceedings for recovery, the possession of allotted land of an extent of acres 42.870 decimals is stated to have been given to IDCO by the State,” the Apex Court stated.
Consequently, the Apex Court concluded that the High Court had not entertained findings on disputed questions of fact, but rather based its judgment on the material on record.
The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision.