Summary
Government land in Sitabuldi, Nagpur had been sub-leased in 1995 to a hotel company. That lease was terminated in 2002, and the company's civil suit challenging the termination was still pending, with no interim relief. In 2015 the Collector allotted the land to Nagpur Metro for a station, expressly subject to the outcome of the suit, and advance possession was handed over. The Bombay High Court held Metro's entry high-handed and ordered possession restored to the company. The Supreme Court set that aside. The allotment order had never been challenged, so Metro, in possession under it for a public project, was not in illegal possession. The writ petition should not have been entertained, given the cloud over the company's title and the disputed questions of possession. Its remedy lies in the pending suit, including compensation if it succeeds.
Issues
- Whether a sub-lessee whose lease had been terminated, and whose suit against the termination was pending without interim relief, could obtain restoration of possession under Article 226 against a Metro corporation in possession under an unchallenged allotment order.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaWrit jurisdiction should not have been exercised where the petitioner's title was clouded and pending in a civil suit, and where whether and how possession was taken were disputed questions of fact. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2)
Held
- The appellant held the land under the Collector's allotment order dated 25.08.2015 for the Nagpur Metro Rail Project, which the writ petitioner never challenged; it could not be said to be in illegal possession, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. (¶ 6)
- The petitioner's lease had been terminated in 2002 and its challenge to the termination was pending in Civil Suit No. 413 of 2002 without any interim order; until its rights are established there, the writ petition could not be entertained. (¶ 6.1)
- Disputed questions whether possession was actually or rightly taken were not fit for writ adjudication; if the petitioner succeeds in the suit it may claim compensation, but a public project cannot be stalled before its rights crystallise. (¶ 6.2)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8582 of 2022 allowed; the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) judgment dated 16.09.2016 in Writ Petition No. 6581 of 2015 set aside and the writ petition dismissed; Civil Suit No. 413 of 2002 to be decided on its own merits; no costs.