Article 226| Mere Existence Of Disputed Questions Of Fact Won't Affect Writ Court's Jurisdiction To Grant Relief: Supreme Court

“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, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.,” observed the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.

For factual background, the appellant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of power transformers and other electrical equipment. For the purpose of establishing its manufacturing unit, the appellant company had purchased land, and the same is the subject matter of the present appeals.

Following the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, the appellant filed a declaration in Form I for the utilization of excess land. With respect to the Hyderabad holdings, the appellant's submission led to the issuance of Government Orders, whereby the exemptions were granted. However, these exemptions were withdrawn later.

Consequently, after a due enquiry by the Special Officer, an order was issued that determined the surplus at 46,538. 43 sq. mts., which was separate from the land exempted. As per the appellant's, the Competent Authority directed it to surrender the excess vacant land within thirty days.

The enquiry officer, in pursuance of the order, took over the actual physical possession of the surplus subject vacant land by way of a panchnama. However, as per the appellant, this panchnama was prepared in a printed form, and the Respondents allegedly took symbolic possession of the subject land. Thus, the actual physical possession of the subject land was with the appellant. This panchnama was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition, and the same was allowed by a single judge bench. However, in appeal, the division bench set aside this order by observing that the single judge erred in declaring the notice as well as the panchanama void ab initio.

“If the correctness or genuineness of the same were disputed by the respondent, then it would be a case of disputed and contentious facts. A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the proper forum to adjudicate such disputed and contentious facts.”

Against this background, the appellant approached the Apex Court. Addressing impugned judgment, the Court held that if the above proposition is accepted as an inflexible rule of law, then Article 226 of the Constitution will become illusory and ineffective. To support its findings, the Court relied upon several cases, including a recent case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ehsan & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 906, wherein it was held:

“No doubt, in a writ proceeding between the State and a landholder, the Court can, on the basis of materials/evidence(s) placed on record, determine whether possession has been taken or not and while doing so, it may draw adverse inference against the State where the statutory mode of taking possession has not been followed…In such an event, the factum of actual possession would have to be determined on the basis of materials/evidence(s) available on record and not merely by finding fault in the procedure adopted for taking possession from the land holder.”

Thus, it would depend on the nature of a disputed question of fact. The issue of possession, by itself, will not become a disputed question of fact, the Court said. In view of this, the Court opined that the issue of an actual physical possession of the excess land in accordance with the aforementioned Act was a mixed question of law and fact and not just a question of fact.

“Mixed question of law and fact refers to a question which depends on both law and fact for its solution. In resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time.”

Before parting, the Court cited its decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another v. Bimal Kumar Shah, wherein it highlighted seven sub rights of Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. Article 300A provides that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.

As an upshot, the Court held that the division bench of the High Court committed an “egregious error in interfering with a very well-considered and well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.” It added that there was no good reason for the division bench to interfere with the judgment. As such, the single-bench judgment was restored while allowing the appeal.

Case Name: M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4526-4527 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Click here to read/ download the judgment

Appellant: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, N.K. Kaul, V. Ramesh, Advocates Sanjeev K Kapoor, Aakash Bajaj, Dhritiman Roy, Sania Abbasi, and R Ashwanth.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, AOR Somanadri Goud Katam, Advocates Neha Agarwal, Vikram, and Sirajuddin