NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 24-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
KENDRIY A KARAM CHARI SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMIT! 
APRIL 24, 2006 
B 
. [ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, I950: 
Article 226-Writ petition--Disputed questions of fact-Maintainability C 
of-Jurisdiction of High Court-Held: High Court is not deprived of its 
jurisdiction to entertain a petition merely because in considering the 
petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined--
However, if the petition raises complex questions of fact which may.for their 
determination, require oral evidence to be taken and on that account the D 
High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may not be appropriately 
tried in a writ petition, the High Court should ordinarily decline to try the 
petition-Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, S. 3. 
The appellant acquired the land of a number of Cooperative Societies 
compulsorily and, therefore, a decision was taken by the appellant that land E 
equivalent to 40% of the land holding of such societies would be made available 
for allotment to the members of the societies whose land was acquired. The 
respondent-society represented that it owned 292 bighas of land and on that 
basis moved for allotment of land for the benefit of its members. The appellant 
asked the respondent-society to send a list of its members duly verified by 
the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and accordingly a list was 
sent. Acting on the basis of the representation made by the Society and 
believing the same to be correct, the appellant proceeded to allot land equivalent 
F 
to 40% of 292 bighas. The respondent wrote a letter indicating details of 
such 292 bighas. Allotment letters were issued to individual members totaling 
1754. Accordingly, payments in respect of such allotments to 1754 persons G 
were accepted. Complaints were received from various persons who alleged 
that they were in fact members of the respondent-society, but their names 
were not forwarded by the Society for allotment of plots. 
205 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant gave thirty days' time to furnish various documents so 
that allotment to the extent of 40% of the land acquired from the society in 
case of its genuine members could be granted. It was clearly indicated that in 
case the details were not furnished, all the allotments made to the members 
of the society would be cancelled and the money deposited forfeited. Despite 
grant of opportunities and the assurances made nothing concrete was placed 
B by the respondent-Society to substantiate the genuine membership. In these 
circumstances, the appellant cancelled the allotments. Questioning the 
correctness of the cancellation, the respondent-Society filed a writ petition 
before the High Court, which was allowed. Hence the appeal. 
C 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the High Court erred 
in entering into disputed questions of fact. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a 
O petition merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief 
questions of fact may fall to be determined. 1213-BI 
Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, AIR (1970) SC 802, relied on. 
1.2. In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to 
E try issues of law and fact. Where, however, the petition raises complex 
question of fact, the Court should not entertain the petition. 1213-CI 
F 
G 
H 
Mahanta Moti Das v. S.P. Sahid, AIR (1959) SC 942, relied on. 
1.3. If disputed questions of fact arise and the High Court is of the view 
that those may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court 
has jurisdiction to refuse to try those questions and relegate the party to his 
normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit. 1213-D-El 
Union of India v. TR. Verma, AIR (1957) SC 882, relied on. 
2.1. In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to 
try issues both of fact and law. When the petition raises complex questions of 
fact which may, for their determination, require oral evidence to be taken and 
on that account the High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may 
not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court should ordinarily 
.. 
.. 
--
NEW OKHLA INDUS. DEV. AUTI!. ''· KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SAHKARJ GRJH NIRMAN SAMITI [PASAYAT. J] 207 
decline to try the petition.121

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