1 – Metro has preferred the present appeal. That the land was sub-leased by the Tourism Corporation to the respondent No 1 herein – original writ petitioner on 17.07.1995 for a period of 30 years. The appellant herein – Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited was to function as a special purpose vehicle for the implementation of the project, the legal framework of the project was to be as per the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. It appears that in order to implement the project in public interest, the project being the prestigious project of the city of Nagpur, and as the appellant was in need of the land, the appellant vide communication dated 27.07.2015 requested the State of Maharashtra for the Development of the Metro Rail Project as there was no land in the vicinity. The Tourism Corporation filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Collector is perfectly legal and in view of the said order the possession of the land was handed over to the appellant – Metro.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/challenge-to-dismissal-of-revision-application-in-criminal-case/
6
The appellant – Metro also filed its reply to the writ petition and submitted that the Collector has allotted the land in question to the appellant vide order dated 25.08.2015 and the possession of the said land was also handed over to the appellant on 26.08.2015.
8 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has directed the appellant – Metro to hand over the possession of the land in question to the respondent No 1 – original writ petitioner and the appellant – Metro has been restrained from dispossessing the respondent
No 1.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has misinterpreted the provision of Section 39 of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 by holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and therefore a Civil Suit could not have been instituted. It is submitted that it is an established principle of law that when there is a cloud over the title, a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable and it is imperative to file a suit for declaration.; (ii) That there were disputed questions of facts on the issue of possession and whether it was taken in accordance with law as raised in the writ petitioner and therefore this could not have been adjudicated by the High Court in the writ petition.
It is submitted that unless and until the respondent No 1 succeeds in Civil Suit, it had no right to challenge the acquisition and/or action of the Metro and in fact the Metro is in possession pursuant to the order passed by the Government dated 25.08.2015.
(v) It is further submitted that as such the land in question, which originally was leased to the respondent No 1, whose lease has been terminated, for which the Civil Suit is pending, has been used by the Metro for a public purpose namely Nagpur Metro Rail Project. 4.2
It is submitted that suddenly on 27.05.2002, the respondent No 3 herein, issued a notice, terminating the lease, contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed.
3 It is submitted that the action on the part of respondent No 2 herein of handing over the advance paper (symbolic / token) possession of the property to the appellant herein and the action on the part of the appellant herein now forcibly entering into the suit property by breaking the eastern side compound wall of the suit property and encroaching upon about 3000 square feet of land of the property is patently arbitrary, illegal, improper and high handed and therefore, the Hon’ble High Court has rightly allowed the writ petition and rightly declared that the action on the part of the appellant herein – Metro is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that therefore the Hon’ble High Court has rightly passed a further order directing the appellant – Metro to remove itself from the property and hand over the possession of the same to the respondent No.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
Therefore, as such, when the appellant is allottee of the land in question pursuant to the allotment order dated 25.08.2015 and is in occupation and possession of the allotted land, which is being used for a public purpose, i.e., Nagpur Metro Rail Project, the appellant cannot be said to be in illegal possession. Therefore, unless and until, the rights of the original writ petitioner in the land in question are established, which shall be decided in the Civil Suit which is pending, the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner could not have been entertained by the High Court. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Case Title: NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. ORBIT MOTELS AND INNS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR . (2022 INSC 1256)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008582-008582 / 2022
