MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST versus SGS CONSTRUCTION & DEV. P. LTD. & ORS

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 15-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
· (2015] 7 S.C.R. 92 
MAHARAJ! EDUCATIONAL TRUST 
v. 
SGS CONSTRUCTION & DEV. P. LTD. & ORS 
(Civil appeal No. 4494 of 2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[H. L. DATTU, CJI., S. A. BOBDE AND 
ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
c 
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parish ad Adhiniyam, 
1965: 
Object of- Discussed. 
s. 15 - Boundary dispute - Default in repayment of 
D loan amount taken by appellant-Trust from HUDCO resulting 
in mortgage of immovable properties including property in 
dispute-A portion of property in dispute exchanged by Trust 
from Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and exchange deed 
deposited with HUDCO- Recovery proceedings by HUDCO, 
E pending on objection of builder- Objection of builder on the 
strength of agreement to sell entered with Trust - Builder 
preferred writ petition for seeking relief of issuance of 
mandamus commanding the Avas to demarcate land- High 
F Court directed the Avas to demarcate 42.45 acres of the 
mortgaged land and 21 acres as unencumbered land out of 
total area of 63. 45 acres- Challenged- Held: It was not the 
function of Avas to demarcate the land on the basis of an 
agreement entered into inter se between the Trust and Builder 
G - It was for the parties to agitate the questions before the 
ORT where the recovery proceedings were pending at the 
instance of HUDCO with whom the property had been 
mortgaged by the Trust- Principle of noscitur a socii will be 
applicable in construing s. 15 and the words 'to make 
H investigation, examination or survey of any property' in 
92 
MAHARAJ! EDUCATIONAL TRUSTv. SGS 
93 
CONSTRUCTION & DEV. P. LTD. 
s. 15(1 )(m) will take their meaning and colour from the other A 
phrases employed in s.15(1) - Avas, the housinf:J ..,oard, 
therefore, could not have demarcated the land by invoking 
powers uls. 15 - Principle of noscitur a socii. 
Writ jurisdiction : Writ petition seeking direction to declare B 
any property as encumbered one - Held : It is not within the 
ken of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to declare any 
property as encumbered one - Such rights between private 
parties cannot be made subject matter of writ jurisdiction~ 
Jurisdiction: Recovery proceedings pending in Delhi - Writ 
petition at Lucknow at the instance of HUDCO - Held: Not 
maintainable. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court · 
c 
D 
HELD: 1. The objections had been preferred by 
the Builder before the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery 
Tribunal, Delhi. Admittedly, 21 acres of land, out of the 
total of63.45 acres which was mortgaged to HUDCO had 
been exchanged by the Trust with Avas Evam Vikas E 
Parishad (Avas). Thus, the exchange was with the 
property which was under mortgage with HUDCO and 
the exchange deed had been deposited by the Trust with" 
HUDCO. Before the Recovery Officer, New Delhi, prayer F 
has been made by the Builder to sell property No~.1 to 5 
and not to sell property No.6 with respect to which he 
has entered into an agreement with the Trust. Though, 
there is serious dispute between the parties to the lis 
whether the said land is unencumbered, finding has G 
been given by the High Court that 21 acres of land is 
unencumbered. It was not open to the High Court to 
enter into the arena, which of the property is 
encumbered. The sale in realization of debt is the outlook 
of the Recovery Officer, ORT, Delhi, where the recovery H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A proceedings are pending, including the objections 
preferred by the Builder. It was not open to the Builder 
to file a writ application for the aforesaid reliefs. The High 
Court could not have adjudicated on the property rights 
under the guise of directing Avas to demarcate the land 
B and give finding that it was unencumbered land. [Paras 
10, 12 and 13] [101-F-H; 102-A; 103-C-E, F] 
2. It was for the parties to agitate the questions 
before the ORT where the recovery proceedings are 
C pending at the instance of HUDCO with whom the 
property had been mortgaged by the Trust. Prima facie, 
on the strength of the agreement to sell, particularly 
when possession had not been handed over to the 
Builder, it was not open to him to file a writ application 
D for demarcation of the property as unencumbered 
property or otherwise. What was sought to be achieved 
by filing a writ petition, was to get rid of the proceedings 
pending before the Recovery Officer, ORT at Delhi, and 
to save land at serial No.6 from being sold which 
E includes 21 acres of land, and an attempt was made to 
get the 21 acres of land dec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.