Mere Existence Of Disputed Question Of Fact Won’t Take Away Jurisdiction Of Writ Court In Granting Appropriate Relief: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasised that if its two decisions appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but must try to reconcile and respect both.
The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment held that mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Writ Court in granting an appropriate relief.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the common Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which the Writ Appeals of the State were allowed and the Single Judge’s decision was set aside.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner.”
The Bench added that in a case where the Court is satisfied that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the Writ Petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the Writ Court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, was required in the interest of justice.
Senior Advocates N.K. Kaul, Mukul Rohatgi, and V. Ramesh represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran represented the Respondents.
In this case, the Appellant i.e., M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (now ECE Industries Limited) purchased land in Fatehnagar Village for a manufacturing unit. The Government declared 46,538.43 square meters of land as surplus and took possession on February 8, 2008. The Appellant challenged the acquisition, and a Single Judge allowed its Writ Petitions. However, the State's Writ Appeals were allowed, setting aside the Single Judge’s Judgment. The Appellant was, therefore, before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, said, “If two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both and the only way to do so is to adopt the wise suggestion of Lord Halsbury given in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495 at p.506 and reiterated by the Privy Council in Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Lahore AIR 1940 PC 230 and follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand.”
The Court noted that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, is debarred from holding an inquiry and the proposition that a Petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of the Supreme Court.
“A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences”, it further remarked.
The Court observed that the issue of possession, by itself, will not become a disputed question of fact an if all that has been said by the State is to be accepted as a gospel truth and nothing shown by the landowner is to be looked into on the ground that a Writ Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact, then the same may lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.
“We are of the considered opinion that the issue as regards taking over of the actual physical possession of the excess land in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 could be said to be a mixed question of law and fact and not just a question of fact”, it also said.
The Court emphasised that in resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing Court must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Division Bench committed an egregious error in interfering with a very well-considered and well-reasoned Judgment rendered by the Single Judge and hence, there was no good reason for the Division Bench to interfere with the Judgment of the Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the Division Bench’s Judgment, and restored that of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 274)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates N.K. Kaul, Mukul Rohatgi, V. Ramesh, Advocates Sanjeev K Kapoor, Aakash Bajaj, Dhritiman Roy, Sania Abbasi, and R Ashwanth.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, AOR Somanadri Goud Katam, Advocates Neha Agarwal, Vikram, and Sirajuddin.
