TMI Blog1957 (3) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. The High Court ordered the Union of India and also S to restore possession of the house to J. S appealed. - Held, that the High Court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus. There was a serious dispute on questions of fact between the parties and also whether j had acquired any title to the property in dispute. Proceedings by way of a Writ were not appropriate in a case where the decision of the Court would amount to a decree declaring a party's title and ordering restoration of possession. - Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1954. - - - Dated:- 7-3-1957 - IMAM, SYED JAFFER, BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. JAGANNADHADAS, B. MENON, P. GOVINDA KAPUR, J.L. JUDGES JUDGMENT : Ram Lal Anand and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o purchase a house in West Patel Nagar. If the applicant was prima facie eligible, he could be instructed to deposit the sale price of the house in the treasury, his eligibility to be verified later on Permission to deposit the sale price did not mean that his eligibility had been accepted. After payment of the sale price the applicant could be required to produce proof of his eligibility. A list would be prepared of all the applicants who had deposited the sale price and whose eligibility had been verified. If the number of the applicants was in excess of the available number of houses, those, whose treasury challans bore a later date, would be excluded and their money refunded. The applicants whose names were included in the final list wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a house in West Patel Nagar. He had made the deposit of Rs. 5,600 as sale price and had apparently complied with all the necessary conditions for allotment of a house to him and the house in dispute was allotted to him on July 31, 1952. The appellant has been in possession of the disputed house since October 3, 1952. The appellant's main contention has been that, having regard to the circumstances of 'the case, the High Court erred in making the order it did which presumably purported to be in the nature of a writ of mandamus. There was a serious dispute on questions of fact between the parties and also whether Jagan Nath had acquired in law any title to the property in dispute. Proceedings by way of a writ were not appropriate in a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plying with the mandatory provisions of a. 3 of the said Act. His eviction was a high-handed act of the Government without any legal justification whatsoever. The Union of India which had illegaly evicted him should be ordered to restore possession of the property in dispute to him and as the eviction was at the instance of the appellant, he should also be directed to restore possession of the said property to Jagan Nath. Reliance was placed upon certain decisions of the High Courts of Punjab in Khushal Singh v. Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Deputy Commissioner, Delhi I.L.R. [1954] Punjab 211., Hyderabad in G. Kistareddy v. Commr. of City Police, Hyderabad A.I.R. [1952] Hyderabad 36., and Pepsu in Mohinder Singh v. State of Pepsu A.I.R. [1955] Peps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been issued him. Indeed, he had been informed, when certain facts became known, that the property in question could not be allotted to him as he was a displaced person who had been allotted land in East Punjab. As between Jagan Nath and the Union of India it will be necessary to decide what rights were acquired by the former in the property upto the stage when the latter informed Jagan Nath that the property would not be allotted to him. Another question for decision will be whether Jagan Nath was allowed to enter into possession of the property because it was allotted to him or under a misapprehension as the Union of India was misled by the contents of his application. The case of the Union of India is that under the scheme Jagan Nath w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The property in dispute, however, is in possession of the appellant. There is no evidence and no finding of the High Court that the appellant was in collusion with the Union of India or that he had knowledge that the eviction of Jagan Nath was illegal. Normally, a writ of mandamus does not issue to or an order in the nature of mandamus is not made against a private individual. Such an order is made against a person directing him to do some particular thing, specified in the order, which appertains to his office and is in the nature of a public duty (Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 11, Lord Simonds Edition, p. 84). If it had been proved that the Union of -India and the appellant had colluded, and the transaction between them was merely col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
