N. SANKARANARAYANAN versus THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 31-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
N. SANKARANARAYANAN
v.
THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7390-7391 of 2009)
JANUARY 31, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Writ petition –
Maintainability of – Writ petition by the appellant to settle his
personal property rights disputes qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3-
members of the family – Held: Such Writ petition cannot be
entertained – Remedy in such case lies in civil courts – Dispute
sought to be raised by the appellant was essentially a private
property dispute between the members of one family of which the
appellant and respondent No. 2 are the members – By indirect means,
a dispute inter se private parties of the nature mentioned could not
be allowed to be raised in the Writ petition u/Art. 226/227 for seeking
issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities in relation
to the properties – Moreso, Writ petition was not filed in the capacity
of a public spirited person.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by
the Division Bench in the impugned order is concurred with. The
writ petition filed by the appellant was wholly misconceived. The
Division Bench rightly observed that 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. By indirect
means such as the one resorted to by the writ petitioner (appellant)
by filing the writ petition, a dispute inter se private parties of the
nature mentioned 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. [Paras 14, 15, 16][824-G-H;
825-A-C]
1.2 The appellant did not file the writ petition in his capacity
as public-spirited person, i.e., Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 820
820
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
was, on the other hand, a writ petition was filed by the appellant
essentially to settle his personal property rights disputes qua
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 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. [Para 17][825-C-D]
1.3 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 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. [Para 18][825-E-F]
1.4 Even if the writ petitioner did not raise pointedly these
questions for claiming reliefs in the writ petition yet, such
questions have a material bearing while considering the grant of
reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. [Para
19][825-G]
1.5 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. [Para 20][825-G-H; 826-A]
1.6 It is not possible to express any opinion on merits for
want of jurisdiction. The parties, would 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. It is left for the State authorities
to act against any such person(s) in accordance with law. [Paras
22, 23][826-B, C-D]
N. SANKARANARAYANAN v. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU
HOUSING BOARD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7390-
7391 of 2009

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