LexSOHANLAL versus THE UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 Lilai'ali Baj v. Tk Stole ef llomba; Sin.ha J~ 1957 March 7. SUPREME COURT REPORTS the order impugned. Hence in the instant case there is no need to apply the rule of conclusive proof as laid dmrn in sub-s.(2) of s. 13. In any event, as the concluding words of the section have provided, any irregularity or failure to comply with the requirements of the section cannot "affect the validity of the order". As all the g,rounds urged in support of the petitions fail, they are dismissed with costs, one set. Petitions dismissed. SOHANLAL v. THE UNION OF INDIA ( BHAGWATI, jAGANNADHADAs, ]AFER IMAM, Gov1NDA MENON and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) Jl'rit ~f mandamus-Disputed qulstions of fact and !aw- Disf,11!e rrgarding tit/e-T11hether ronrf£1' by U!~Y of writ approj1riate -l1.litt! writ can issue to private iu_dividual-~S'tate illegally evicting jJtrso11 fronl house-.A1wther person takzug possession bona fide u:ith- out !:11ou1/edge qf illegal eviction-r11hether ivrit can t"ssue against such j;enon-Consti!ution ~f India, Art. 226 . .J, a displaced person, "'·as.found /1ri1nafacie entitled to allot- ment of~. house and the Accomn1od~tion Officer moved his family into the house on I\1ay 10, 1952, but no letter of allotment ,\·as issued to him. Later, ,\·hen certain facts became knc\vn which in tht" opinion of the Union of India disentitlcd J to the allotment, he "·as informf'"<l that the house could not be allotted to him. J \vas c,·icted fr01n the house on September 27, 1952, ,...,.·ith- out being gi,·en 1 s days notice as reqnircd hy s. 3 of the Public Premise-; Eviction Act (XXVII of i950). ~fhe house \Vas then allotted to S and he \\·as given possession on October 3, 1952. J filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. The High Court ordered the Union of India and also S to restore possession of the house to J. S appealed. He!d, that the High Court erred in issuing the writ of .111a1;da1nus. There ,\·as a secious dispute on questions of fact bet\veen the paTties and also 'vhether J had acquired any title to the property in dispute. Proceedings by \vay of a \\Tit \\'ere not approp1iate in ;"J. case \\·here the decision of the Cou;:t \Yould amount to a decree declaring a party's title and ordering restoration of poss:!s- sl.nn. The proper remedy in such a case is by \\'ay 'of a title suit in 'A Civil (:011rt. The alternati\-e rem~dy of obtaining relief by a S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 739 ~...,,.., \Vrit of nzandarnus or an oider in the nature of 1nandamur could 1955 J only be had if the facts we;·c not in dispute and the title to the . property in dispute was clear. Solian Lal- v. . L\s the eviction of J was illegal on account of the fai.lure to TM Union. of lfulia give him notice under s. 3 of the Public Pren1ises Eviction Act a \Vrit of 1nanda1nus might have issued to the Union if the property had still been in its possession. But no such \'vTit could issue to S as, normally, it does not issue to a private individual. If it had been proved that the Union and S had colluded, and the transC action betvveen them vvas merely colourable, entered into \Vith a view to deprive J of his rights, jurisdiction to issue the \Yr.it might be said to exist in the Court. The \Vrit ho\\'CVer could not issue to S 'vho had, apparently, entered into bona fide pOssession ·Of the house without knowledge that J had been illegally evicted ~"'I therefrom. R. v. Chester Co1poration (1855) 25 LJ.Q.B. 6r, applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal NO• 132 of 1954· Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 30, I 953, of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Writ Application No. 3I4 of I952. Ram Lal Anand and S. N. Anand, for the appellant. R. Ganpathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent ~,. - No. 1. A. N. Grover and K. L. Mehta, for the respondent No. 2. I957· March 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM ].-The respondent Jagan Nath filed a peti- tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court which was allowed. The High Court ordered the re.-.pondent The Union of India and the appellant Sohan Lal to forthwith restore possession of house No. 35 situated in \'Vest Patel Nagar, Delhi to ~- Jagan Nath. Against this order of the High Court the ' appellant applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court. }Q.gau Nath is a disp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.