On 6th December 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that it is an established principle of law that when there is a cloud over the title, a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable and it is imperative to file a suit for declaration (Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited, Nagpur & Ors.)
Facts of the Case:
An area bearing Survey No. 169, City Survey No. 1864 of Mouza Sitabuldi, District Nagpur was owned by the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra. A lease was executed in favour of the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Limited with respect to the subject land. The land was sub-leased by the Tourism Corporation to respondent 1 for 30 years. In 2002, the Tourism Corporation vide letter dated 27.05.2002 terminated the lease dated 17.07.1995. Hence, a special civil suit was filed against tourism corporation which is pending.
Thereafter, government of India conveyed its approval for the implementation of the Nagpur Metro Rail Project. The Government resolution dated 01.06.2015 came to be issued by the Maharashtra Government detailing the scope of “advance possession” and describing its necessity. The advance possession would mean possession that is delivered to an authority for a project for public purpose without completing the formality of actual permission. The order dated 25.08.2015 categorically mentioned that the allotment is subject to the outcome of the Civil Suit No. 413 of 2002.
In consonance with the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by Collector, the possession of the aforesaid land was handed over by the Senior Regional Manager of the Tourism Corporation to the representative of the Collector, Nagpur and accordingly the possession was taken over from respondent 1 and handed over to appellant on 26.08.2015. Respondent 1 filed a writ petition against the same before the HC.
An order of passed ad-interim order of status quo was passed. The WP was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over possession of land to respondent1 giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that “the HC has misinterpreted the provision of Section 39 of the Metro Railways Act, 1978 by holding that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and therefore a Civil Suit could not have been instituted. The bar of Civil Suit will only apply in cases wherein there is adequate remedy provided under Act and not otherwise. The respondent 1’s s title was unclear and the suit was pending at the instance of respondent 1. It is an established principle of law that when there is a cloud over the title, a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable and it is imperative to file a suit for declaration.
There was a disputed questions of facts on the issue of possession and whether it was taken in accordance with law as raised in WP, therefore this could not have been adjudicated by HC. Even the allotment order by which the land had been allotted to the appellant had not been challenged. Therefore, by way of operation of principle of waiver, the respondent 1 is not entitled to question the handing over of possession. There is no alternate space available for the appellant to the land in question.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “there was a registered deed of lease dated 17.07.1995 in favour of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 herein transferred in favour of respondent No. 1 herein by way of lease, the entire land in question for a period of 30 years for the purpose of constructing the hotel complex. The e peaceful possession of the respondent No. 1 herein could not have been disturbed or interfered with without following the due process of law.
The HC has rightly passed a further order directing the appellant – Metro to remove itself from the property and hand over the possession of the same to the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner. The HC has rightly restrained the appellant and others from dispossessing the original writ petitioner without following the due process of law.”
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “when the appellant is allottee of the land in question pursuant to the allotment order dated 25.08.2015 and is in occupation and possession of the allotted land, which is being used for a public purpose, i.e., Nagpur Metro Rail Project, the appellant cannot be said to be in illegal possession. The HC ought not to have entertained the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein considering the fact that there was a cloud over the title of the respondent 1.
Unless and until, the rights of the original writ petitioner in the land in question are established, which shall be decided in the Civil Suit which is pending, the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner could not have been entertained by the High Court. if the respondent No. 1 succeeds in the suit filed by him, in that case, it may claim the compensation, but unless and until its rights are crystalised in a pending suit, a public project cannot be stalled.
The allotment order dated 25.08.2015 and the possession handed over to the appellant pursuant to the said allotment cannot be said to be per se illegal.”
The appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.
Case: Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited, Nagpur & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8582 Of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Date: December 06, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
