In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution can examine disputed facts if such disputes are artificially raised by the state to reject a petition. The ruling clarifies that jurisdiction under Article 226 is determined by the nature of the question raised rather than the mere existence of factual disputes.
The case involved a dispute between A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (now ECE Industries Limited) and the Government of Telangana, regarding the possession of surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had ruled in favor of the state, but the Supreme Court, in its ruling, restored the Single Judge’s decision, stating that the government’s claim of possession was legally untenable.
Case Background
The case pertains to land measuring 1,63,764 square yards in Fatehnagar, Rangareddy District, Telangana, owned by A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation. After the enactment of the ULC Act, 1976, the company filed a declaration under Section 6(1), and a portion of its land was classified as surplus by the government.
The state claimed to have taken possession of the surplus land under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act. However, the company argued that:
The government had never taken actual physical possession, as required by law.
The notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) were defective and backdated.
The panchnama documenting the possession was fabricated, and the company continued to operate on the land.
Initially, a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court ruled in favor of the company, holding that possession had not been lawfully taken. However, a Division Bench reversed this ruling, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Observations by the Supreme Court
The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan made several critical observations while delivering the judgment.
1. Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Extends to Examining Disputed Facts
The Supreme Court clarified that a writ petition cannot be dismissed merely because disputed facts are raised. It held:
“Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not ousted merely because factual disputes exist. If such disputes are raised solely to defeat a petition, the court must examine them.”
The court ruled that the nature of the dispute and its implications for justice must guide the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
2. Mere Issuance of a Notice Under Section 10(3) Does Not Confer Possession
The government relied on the issuance of notices under Sections 10(3), 10(5), and 10(6) of the ULC Act to claim that possession had legally vested in the state. However, the Supreme Court clarified:
“A mere notice under Section 10(3) does not entitle the authorities to take possession. The law requires actual physical possession, not just de jure possession.”
The court emphasized that paper transactions and symbolic possession cannot override physical possession.
3. Defective Notices and Backdated Documents Render Government’s Claim Invalid
The Supreme Court closely examined the notices issued under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) and found multiple defects:
The Section 10(5) notice was allegedly issued on 05.01.2008, but the Section 10(6) notice was dated 05.02.2008, which means the mandatory 30-day period was not followed.
The notices contained contradictory dates, including “01.10.2008”, which was inexplicable.
The panchnama did not have the required signatures, details of independent witnesses, or a proper record of possession.
Based on these inconsistencies, the court ruled:
“The documents relied upon by the state do not inspire confidence. Possession cannot be taken through fabricated or defective documentation.”
4. Possession Must Be Actual and Not Merely Symbolic
The court underscored that taking possession of land requires actual control, stating:
“Paper possession or symbolic acts cannot defeat valuable property rights when actual possession remains with the landowner.”
The judgment referenced previous rulings, including:
State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 – which held that possession under the ULC Act must be actual and not merely on paper.
Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional Collector (ULC), (2014) 12 SCC 523 – which reaffirmed that possession must be physical and unequivocal before the repeal of the ULC Act.
Since the ULC Act was repealed in Telangana in 2008, any land that was not physically possessed by the government before that date automatically reverted to the original owner.
Decision of the Supreme Court
After analyzing the evidence and legal provisions, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation and set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court. The key rulings included:
The state’s claim of possession was invalid – Since actual possession was never taken, the land continued to belong to the company.
The notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) were defective – The mandatory procedure was not followed, making the possession proceedings void.
The writ court had jurisdiction to examine the case – The government artificially raised factual disputes to reject the petition, which justified the High Court’s intervention under Article 226.
The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s judgment, which had favored the company.
The state’s claim over the land was declared illegal.
The court reaffirmed the importance of actual possession in land acquisition matters.
