Dismissed

Shri. Sadashiv Dharmaji Mhatre v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2014WP/4831/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a Writ Petition seeking a negative declaration that the Respondents have no title to the subject land. The Court held that adjudicating disputed questions of title and facts is beyond the scope of a writ jurisdiction, and the proper remedy lies before the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Negative prayer for declaration of no title in Respondents is rejected; remedies kept open.

Shri. Sadashiv Dharmaji Mhatre Vs Union of India and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

RNG 1 4831.14rajgu

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4831 OF 2014

¶3

Sadashiv Dharmaji Mhatre

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Union of India & anr .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Robin Jaisinghani a/w Ms.Jacinta D'Silva for Petitioner Mr.S.R.Rajguru,Mr.D.P.Singh and Dr.G.R.Sharma for Respondents

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 18^th September, 2014

¶9

PC.

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The only

¶11

material substantive prayer in this Petition is in prayer (a) which reads thus :

¶12

(a) “that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of declaration of this Hon'ble Court declaring that the Respondents do not have and are not entitled to claim any kind of right, and/or interest in the subject land more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' hereto.”

¶13

It is not in dispute that in respect of the very land, the Union of

¶14

India has executed a lease deed dated 7^th December, 1998 in favour of the

¶15

Petitioner for a period of 20 years. The Union of India has served a notice

¶16

RNG 2 4831.14rajgu

¶17

dated 23^rd September, 2013 on the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to vacate the land in question. The Advocate for the Petitioner replied to the said notice by a letter dated 8^th October, 2013. In the said letter, it is contended that the Lease Deed is illegal and void. It is contended that the land in question on which a salt work was in existence has been in possession of the fore-fathers of the Petitioner for more than 100 years and when the lease was executed, the Petitioner was already in possession of the land. In paragraph 5 it is stated that the Petitioner was never a lessee of the Union of India and he is the owner of the land in question. In fact it is stated that the said letter be treated as a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relies upon decision of the Apex court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. MUNDRA SALT & CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (2001) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 222. He submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the question of the Union of India claiming title after the coming in force of the Constitution of India will not arise and at highest, the State Government could have claimed title which in fact is not claimed.

¶19

RNG 3 4831.14rajgu

¶20

The Petitioner has claimed a negative declaration that the Union of India has no right in respect of the said land. The averments made in the Petition proceed on the footing that the Petitioner is the owner. The Lease Deed dated 7^th December, 1998 executed by the Union of India describes the Petitioner as a lessee of the said land. Therefore, the Petitioner will have to establish his title as the owner. The decision on issues raised in this Petition will involve adjudication on questions of facts and disputed questions of title. Therefore, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy for the Petitioner. The remedy of the Petitioner is before the Civil Court.

¶21

By keeping all the issues open, we decline to entertain the Petition. Petition is rejected. However, the remedies of the Petitioner are kept open.

¶22

(G.S.KULKARNI, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Shri. Sadashiv Dharmaji Mhatre v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sadashiv Dharmaji Mhatre v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Baliram Gopal Katkari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Dheeraj Anant Meher Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

More Chetana Vijay Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar Vs Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Mehad Mohd. Tanveer Vs Mohammed Tanveer

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar Vs Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.