High Courts Should Exercise Caution in Writ Jurisdiction in Land Dispute Cases: Supreme Court

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for caution when High Courts consider land dispute cases under their writ jurisdiction. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, discussed the importance of maintaining the balance between writ jurisdiction and alternative remedies in land-related disputes.

The key observation made by the Supreme Court was, "In the event of a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact, a writ court ordinarily refrains from deciding it." This statement underscores the principle that when disputes involving questions of fact arise in land-related matters, alternative remedies, such as filing a suit, should be considered rather than relying solely on writ jurisdiction.

The case in question involved a dispute over the declaration of surplus land and its vesting in the state under the Ceiling Act, 1976. The original petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the orders related to the land, including the declaration of surplus land and vesting notifications. The High Court had entertained the writ petition despite a serious dispute regarding the possession of the land.

The Supreme Court noted several factors that led to its decision to set aside the High Court's order. These factors included a significant delay of approximately seven years in filing the first writ petition, insufficient documentary evidence regarding possession, and the absence of a specific statement challenging the recital in an earlier order regarding possession.

The Court's judgment highlighted the need to consider the nature of the dispute, the availability of alternative remedies, and the sufficiency of evidence when deciding whether to entertain a writ petition in land-related disputes.

The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and dismissing the writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner's right to institute a suit.

This decision serves as a reminder that High Courts should exercise caution when dealing with land disputes under writ jurisdiction, especially when disputes involve questions of fact and alternative remedies are available to the parties involved.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2023

STATE OF U.P. & ANR. vs EHSAN & ANR.           

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AutoRecovery-save-of-13-Oct-2023-STATE-OF-U.P.pdf"]