TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). He had properties at Bhadarwal, in the district Jaipur and a fixed deposit receipt of Dena Bank. The said properties were forfeited under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short, SAFEMA ). He filed a Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court questioning the said order of detention as also the order passed under SAFEMA. The said Writ Petition was allowed. A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst by the competent authority was also dismissed. Representations were made by him for return of the said properties. An order was passed by the competent authority on or about 30.1.1996 canceling the Order dated 24.9.1979 whereby and whereunder the properties were directed to be forfeited. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in this Petition is disputed questions of facts. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are owners of the property and it is the duty of the Respondent authorities to hand over the possession of the property in question to them and on the other hand, it is prima facie established that third party interest has created by way of sale deed since long and same has not been challenged by the Petitioners on anybody else and the said registered sale deed is in operation as on today. Therefore, whether the aforesaid sale-deed is legal and the same has been executed by the Petitioners or the same is false and fabricated, cannot be decided in this proceedings initiated by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to grant such permission stating; At this juncture, Shri Sanjanwala submitted that his right to pursue other remedy be reserved. But, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the matter, we made it clear to Shri Sanjanwala that we may not pass this order and may not grant simple permission to withdraw the Appeal, but we may like to decide this Appeal on merits and ultimately the person concerned in the matter may have to even face the consequences. Thereupon, Shri Sanjanwala gave up his request. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the said order, insofar as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have been kept confined only to the question as to whether the writ petition should have been determined on merit by the learned Single Judge. A party having a grievance must have a remedy. Access to justice is a human right. When there exists such a right, a disputant must have a remedy in terms of the doctrine ubi jus ibi remedium. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. and Another v Ramesh Chander Agarwal and Others [(2003) 6 SCC 220], this Court held; 22. The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reedoms, 1950 [See Clark (Procurator Fiscal, Kirkcaldy) v. Kelly]. Furthermore, even if the petitioner herein had filed a writ petition before the High Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same would not have been entertained as the impugned order had been passed consequent to and in furtherance of the purported consent order passed by the High Court. Ordinarily, the High Court would not have issued a writ of certiorari for quashing its own order. Even in that view of the matter it is apposite that this petition under Article 32 should be entertained. See Swamy Atmananda and Ors. v Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others [(2005) 10 SCC 51]. There is nothing on record to show that the Division Bench while enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Bench did not go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties before it. Whether appellant was guilty of any forgery or not was not determined. It is therefore, difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Jain that the Division Bench intended to exercise larger jurisdiction. If it intended to do so, it could have taken recourse to procedure known to law. It allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. By doing so, the parties were relegated to the same position to which they had been viz. when the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Appellant, thus in our view could not have been placed in a worse position. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the part of the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
