REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3601-3602 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.22077-22078 of 2008)

Santosh Sood … Appellant

Versus

Gajendra Singh & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  extent  of  jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court  to  pass  an  order  of  

demolition  of  property,  ownership  whereof  is  claimed  by  the  appellant  

without  giving  him  an  opportunity  of  hearing  is  the  question  involved  

herein.

3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix :

This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  

dated  14.3.2007  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  for  Madhya  

Pradesh,  Jabalpur  Bench,  Gwalior  in  Writ  Petition  No.5429  of  2006  

directing the  respondents  for  taking steps for dispossessing the petitioner  

from the disputed land; as also the order dated 28.09.2007 of the said Court  

dismissing the review petition being No. MCC 254 of 2007 filed for review  

of the said order dated 14.3.2007.

The petitioner  had obtained a  loan of  Rs.9 lakhs from Respondent  

No.8,  namely,  the  State  Bank  of  Indore,  Sheopur  for  construction  of  a  

building  which  was  to  be  let  out  to  the  bank  upon  completion  of  

construction.  The  Respondent-bank  had  duly  verified  the  title  of  the  

appellant  by  obtaining  a  search  report  through  its  panel  lawyer  Mr.  

Mahendra  Kumar  Jain.   It  furthermore  obtained  legal  opinion  from  the  

aforesaid panel lawyer who certified in regard to his title vide letters dated  

24.11.2005 and 7.04.2006.  Once the property was ready upon construction,  

it was let out on rent by the petitioner and was duly furnished for use of the  

bank.  Since it involved a substantial expenditure and also public money, it  

had  serious  apprehensions  of  being  dispossessed  when  the  writ  petition  

(PIL) was entertained by the High Court. In the said writ proceedings, it was  

2

submitted by the respondent-bank that it was ready to pay the rent either to  

respondent Nos.6 and 7 or to the present petitioner not to both the parties. It  

was apprehended by the bank that if an order is passed by the High Court  

with regard to dispossession of the answering respondent, it would involve a  

huge loss pertaining to the furnishing and shifting of the premises besides  

loss of business due to shifting.   In those circumstances,  permission was  

sought  by  the  bank  to  deposit  the  rent  with  the  present  appellant  till  

liquidation of loan amount due to the bank and it was also submitted that the  

bank was ready and willing to deposit the amount of rent as per the direction  

of  the  court  by  making  an  application  for  recall  of  the  order  dated  

14.03.2007  in  Writ  Petition  No.5429  of  2006  (PIL).  The  High  Court,  

however, dismissed the aforesaid application of the respondent bank.

It was furthermore submitted by the petitioner that the High Court had  

dismissed the writ petition and the subsequent review petition merely on the  

basis of oral submissions made by the petitioner. The petitioner had not been  

served with a notice of the original writ petition as a result whereof, no reply  

could  be  filed.  It  was  also  submitted  that  the  High  Court  relied  upon  a  

statement of the respondents wherein it was stated that earlier a title suit had  

been filed by the petitioner which has already been decided in favour of the  

3

Nagar Palika and the same was affirmed by the High Court in FA No.77 of  

1998 against the petitioner.  The High Court failed to consider that the said  

Civil Suit No.1-A of 1986 on which the court had relied upon was filed by  

the petitioner in respect of a different property and not the land in dispute in  

the present case.  

A  Civil  Suit  being  No.178-A of  2006 is  pending  before  the  Civil  

Judge Class II, Sheopur with regard to the property involved in the present  

case in which the Nagar Palika, one of the parties in the instant appeal had  

filed  a  reply  and  written  statement  on  12.10.2006.  In  the  said  suit,  the  

petitioners herein had obtained an injunction in their favour and the same is  

in operation till the pendency of the suit.

A Public  Interest  Litigation (PIL) was filed by the first  respondent  

before the High Court praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

“(i) That  the  concerned  authorities  may  kindly  be directed to take immediate possession of  the  property  in  question  from  respondent  No.7 and cancel the order of transfer in the  records of Municipal Council, Sheopur.

(ii) That the authorities may kindly be directed  to take strict disciplinary and criminal action  against the officers who have indulged in the  illegal act causing loss to the Government as  well as Municipal Council, Sheopur.

4

(iii) That  the  loss  which  has  been  caused  may  kindly be ordered to be recovered from the  officers and other persons who are liable for  the same.”

The First Respondent contended that despite unsuccessful attempts on  

the part of the appellant to establish ownership over the land which, in fact,  

is vested in the respondent No.6, Nagar Palika; the appellant in collusion  

with its officers, managed to see that it does not take steps for her eviction.  

In the said public interest litigation, the appellant was arrayed as respondent  

No.7.   

4. Indisputably, appellant had entered into an agreement of loan with the  

respondent  No.6-Bank  pursuant  whereto  or  in  furtherance  whereof,  

constructions  were  raised  as  per  the  Bank’s  requirements.   The  monthly  

installments payable in terms of the said loan agreement to the bank were  

adjusted from the rent stipulated for occupation of the said building.   

5. Before the High Court, the Nagar Palika appeared.  The counsel for  

the Bank entered appearance.  A statement was made by them that the title  

suit filed by the appellant against the Municipal Council has been dismissed  

and  an  appeal  preferred  thereagainst  has  also  been  dismissed.   It  was  

furthermore  contended  that  the  Nagar  Palika  had  cancelled  the  mutation  

5

entry  made  in  her  favour  and  steps  were  being  taken  to  obtain  actual  

possession of the property.  A statement was also made by the counsel of the  

Bank that  it  would be ready to pay rent to the Nagar Palika.   The High  

Court, relying on or on the basis of the said statements, directed :

“In view of this statement, this petition is disposed  of with the liberty to respondents  No.5 and 6 to  take steps in accordance with law for dispossessing  the respondent No.7 and 8.  They can also accept  the rent as tendered by respondent No.8.

With  the  aforesaid  observation,  petition  stands  disposed of.”

6. Appellant filed an application for recalling of the said order, inter alia,  

on the premise that before the passing of the same, she was not heard.   

By reason of a judgment and order dated 28.9.2007, the said review  

application was dismissed, stating :

“After perusing the order passed by this Court in  the  writ  petition,  we  find  that  this  Court  has  disposed  of  the  said  writ  petition  merely  on  the  statements of the parties and has not decided any  controversy.  Hence, there is no mistake apparent  on the face of the record to call for review.”

7. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain,  learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellant would contend :

6

1) A Public Interest Litigation involving a complicated question of title  

by  and  between  the  appellant  and  the  Nagar  Palika  was  not  

maintainable.

2) In any event,  no order  and/or  observation could have passed/made  

without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.   

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank would support the  

case of the appellant.

9. Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent  

No.6 and 7, would contend that by reason of the impugned judgment, they  

having merely been permitted to take steps for eviction of the appellant to  

which  it  was  otherwise  entitled  to  no  interference  with  the  impugned  

judgment is warranted.  Our attention has furthermore been drawn to the fact  

that the appellant, despite having lost in two suits, has filed another suit in  

the court of Civil Judge, Sheopur being suit No.178-A of 2006 as a result  

whereof the Municipal Council is hesitant to take steps for demolition of the  

building and/or evicting the appellant and/or the Bank.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 urged that the Public Interest  

Litigation had to be filed as the officers of the Municipal Council, despite  

7

passing of the decree by the Civil Court, in collusion and in conspiracy with  

the  appellant,  had  not  been  taking  steps  for  her  eviction  from a  public  

property.  

11. Admittedly,  the  appellant  was  not  given  any  notice  in  the  PIL.  

According to her, the dispute between the appellant and the Nagar Palika is  

only in respect of the boundary wall and not for the entire building.  Had an  

opportunity of hearing been given to the appellant, it could have shown that  

the public interest litigation was uncalled for, particularly having regard to  

the admission made by the Nagar Palika in its written statement filed in the  

earlier suits.

12. It  is  beyond any doubt  or  dispute  that  the  parties  are  on litigating  

terms.  Two rounds of litigation have come to an end.  Admittedly, another  

suit  has been filed by the appellant in the court  of Civil Judge, Sheopur.  

Whether such a suit is maintainable or not or whether in effect and substance  

it is an abuse of the process of the court will have to be determined by the  

Civil Court itself.

13. The High Court, unfortunately, even on its own showing disposed of  

the public interest litigation on the basis of the statements made at the Bar  

without entering into the merit of the matter and, thus, without resolving the  

8

controversy  between  the  party.   There  cannot,  however,  be  any  doubt  

whatsoever that subject to an order passed by a competent court of law, the  

Nagar Palika would be entitled to take steps either to execute the decree  

passed in its favour and/or in terms of the provisions of the Act.   For the  

said purpose, no order of a court of law was necessary.  Before us, a detailed  

counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been projected that the land in  

question belongs to the Nagar Palika.  The State of Madhya Pradesh also in  

its counter affidavit raised similar contentions.

If  a  Civil  Suit  was  pending  which  may  or  may  not  be  frivolous,  

ordinarily  the  High  Court  should  not  have  entertained  a  public  interest  

litigation.  On the other hand, if it was found that the civil court was not  

proceeding with the matter as expeditiously as it should have, appropriate  

directions could have issued in that behalf.  It is trite that save and except  

cogent  reasons,  the  High Court,  in  a  public  interest  litigation,  would not  

interfere with the due process of law.  If an abuse of process of court was  

undertaken by a party, some finding of fact was required to be arrived at and  

even  a  proceeding  under  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  could  have  been  

initiated.  [See  The Advocate General, State of Bihar v.  Madhya Pradesh  

Khair Industries & Anr. [AIR 1980 SC 946].

9

The parameters of a public interest litigation is well known in view of  

a  series  of  decisions  of  this  Court  .   {[see  for  example   Guruvayoor  

Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v.  C.K. Rajan & Ors. [(2003 (7)  

SCC 546]}.

We need not enter into the said question, particularly, in view of the  

order proposed to be passed by us.

14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are, therefore,  

of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved, if this appeals are  

disposed of with the following directions :

1) The Civil Judge, Sheopur must take up the hearing of Suit No.178-A  

of  2006  immediately  and  dispose  of  the  same  as  expeditiously  as  

possible  and  not  later  than  three  months  from  the  date  of  

communication of this order.  It shall not grant any adjournment in the  

suit save and except for sufficient and cogent reasons.

2) If no order of injunction has been passed against the Nagar Palika, it  

would be open to it to take such steps as is permissible in law.  Parties  

shall, however, be at liberty to pray for interim order or direction if  

found to be necessary.

1 0

3) The  Bank  shall  deposit  the  amount  of  rent  in  the  said  suit  which  

would be disbursed by the Court to the successful party subject to the  

result thereof and subject to any other and further order which may be  

passed by the learned Civil Judge.

15. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with the above directions.  

No costs.

……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………..…J.     [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

New Delhi; May 15, 2009

1 1