Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside  ||  Ker HC: In Non-Performance of Agreement, Buyer to Get Charge Over Property For Paying Purchase Price  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Reinstate Ayurvedic Doctors Who Haven’t Attained 62 Years of Age  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Accrual Time For Taxing Income to Be Postponed Till Dispute’s Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Distributor Not An Agent But An Independent Contractor  ||  Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics    

VishnugopalAnd Ors. vs. The State Of Maharashtra - (High Court of Bombay) (23 Oct 2023)

In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, factual determination of rights cannot be undertaken



Challenge raised in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is to the decision taken as indicated in the Note Sheet dated 8th March, 2021 by the second Respondent-Nagpur Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner with regard to taking over possession of land for public utility purpose and preparing a possession receipt in that regard. Challenge is also raised to the possession receipt.

Unless the basic issue with regard to right, title and interest in the subject land is determined in the light of the rival claims of the petitioners and the President of the fourth respondent, the prayer seeking a declaration that President of the fourth respondent had no right to surrender the property in favour of the Municipal Corporation cannot be adjudicated. It would therefore be necessary for the Petitioners to establish their legal rights in the subject property first before the prayers sought by them could be considered. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such factual determination of rights cannot be undertaken.

Present Court decline to entertain the writ petition and consider the prayers made therein on merits. Instead, it would be open for the Petitioners to invoke appropriate jurisdiction for seeking resolution of the disputed questions that arise in the present proceedings.

The writ petition is not entertained since it seeks resolution of various disputed questions. Keeping all points raised in the writ petition open and with liberty to the Petitioners to invoke appropriate jurisdiction in accordance with law for seeking redressal of their grievances, the writ petition is disposed of.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved