Existence of disputed question of fact does not exclude HC's Article 226 jurisdiction: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the mere existence of disputed questions of fact in a case does not take away a High Court's jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution [M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors].A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan remarked that a "stock argument" is usually available with the State that since disputes questions of fact are raised in a case, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction. However, the top court said that when a State raises such argument merely as a ground for rejection of a plea, the writ court must investigate the disputed facts and record its findings after considering the materials on record. "Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case," the apex court said..The Bench further said that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in relevant proceedings is debarred from holding such an inquiry."The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective," it added.It would all depend on the nature of the question of fact, the Court clarified..The top court made these observations in its decision on two appeals filed by AP Electrical Equipment Corporation, challenging a 2022 judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana and Hyderabad. The company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical equipment, had purchased 1,63,764 square yards of land in Fatehnagar village of Rangareddy district in Telangana. Following the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, or ULC Act, the company filed a declaration regarding its land holdings. A portion of the land was exempt from ceiling laws under government orders. However, the State later withdrew some exemptions, citing non-compliance with conditions for industrial development..The government claimed that the company failed to construct the housing units for weaker sections as per the exemption condition under Section 21 of the ULC Act. Consequently, the land was declared surplus, and the Special Officer (Urban Land Ceiling) initiated acquisition proceedings, allegedly taking possession through a panchnama (documents recording the proceedings of searches and seizures) in February 2008..The appellant-company challenged the acquisition, arguing that the government had never taken actual physical possession and that the alleged takeover documents were fabricated after the repeal of the ULC Act in 1999. A single-judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the company in 2022, holding that the government failed to follow the due process. It added that the alleged panchnama was backdated and fabricated after the ULC Act was repealed..The State government appealed the decision. A Division Bench of the High Court overturned the single-judge’s ruling, holding that the government had validly issued acquisition notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act and the absence of a statutory requirement for repeated notices meant the possession was legally taken.It added the panchnama was an acceptable mode of possession under land acquisition laws. Dissatisfied with the Division Bench order, the company approached the Supreme Court.The top court observed that the State failed to establish proper service of notices under Sections 10(5) of the ULC Act thus, making the acquisition invalid..It added that the alleged possession records lacked credibility, and disagreed with the High Court's finding that there was no requirement under the statute for obtaining the signature of the landowner on the panchnama."When State Authorities try to take law in their own hands by hook or crook and rely on bogus paper panchnamas for the purpose of asserting that actual physical possession was taken over before the date of the repeal, then it is imperative that the signature of the landowner must be obtained in the panchnama so as to attach sanctity and authenticity to such exercise of taking over of actual possession. Affidavits of the panchas would also attach great sanctity to the same.".The Court also took exception to the language used by the High Court Division Bench in its verdict on the appeal."We have noticed that the Division Bench in its impugned judgment has used the expression “shockingly the learned Single Judge” at various places. We fail to understand what is so shocking in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the Division Bench had to interfere in a writ appeal. Was the Division Bench deciding a criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Single Judge?"The intra-court appeal in a High Court is really an appeal from one coordinate bench to another coordinate bench and it is for this reason that a writ cannot be issued by one Bench of the High Court to another Bench of the High Court nor can even the High Court issue writ to a High Court, it added..Accordingly, the Court allowed both the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. It also restored the order of single-judge..[Read Judgment]