N. SANKARANARAYANANversusTHE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

820                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 820                [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A                         N. SANKARANARAYANAN
                                         v.
        THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
                       (Civil Appeal Nos. 7390-7391 of 2009)
                                JANUARY 31, 2019
B
                      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                         DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
             Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Writ petition –
      Maintainability of – Writ petition by the appellant to settle his
      personal property rights disputes qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3-
C
      members of the family – Held: Such Writ petition cannot be
      entertained – Remedy in such case lies in civil courts – Dispute
      sought to be raised by the appellant was essentially a private
      property dispute between the members of one family of which the
      appellant and respondent No. 2 are the members – By indirect means,
D     a dispute inter se private parties of the nature mentioned could not
      be allowed to be raised in the Writ petition u/Art. 226/227 for seeking
      issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities in relation
      to the properties – Moreso, Writ petition was not filed in the capacity
      of a public spirited person.
E            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by
      the Division Bench in the impugned order is concurred with. The
      writ petition filed by the appellant was wholly misconceived. The
      Division Bench rightly observed that the dispute sought to be
      raised by the appellant in his writ petition was essentially a private
F     property dispute between the members of one family of which
      the appellant and respondent No. 2 are the members. By indirect
      means such as the one resorted to by the writ petitioner (appellant)
      by filing the writ petition, a dispute inter se private parties of the
      nature mentioned could not be allowed to be raised in the writ
G     petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for seeking
      issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities in
      relation to the properties in question. [Paras 14, 15, 16][824-G-H;
      825-A-C]
             1.2 The appellant did not file the writ petition in his capacity
      as public-spirited person, i.e., Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It
H
                                       820
  N. SANKARANARAYANAN v. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU                             821
                HOUSING BOARD

was, on the other hand, a writ petition was filed by the appellant        A
essentially to settle his personal property rights disputes qua
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. No writ petition can be entertained for
issuance of any writ against any private individual in respect of
any private property dispute. The remedy in such case lies in
civil courts. [Para 17][825-C-D]
                                                                          B
      1.3 The questions such as, who is the owner of the land in
question, the appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other member
of their family, whether the land in question was let out by
respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and, if so, when, why and
for what purpose, who had the right to let out the said land
(appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other member of the family),        C
what was the arrangements, if any, made in the memorandum of
settlement in relation to the land in question inter se members of
the family, whether it was breached or not and, if so, by whom,
what activities are being carried on the said land and, if so, by
whom, whether such activities are legal or illegal etc. are not the       D
questions which can be raised by any private individual against
other private individual in the writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. [Para 18][825-E-F]
       1.4 Even if the writ petitioner did not raise pointedly these
questions for claiming reliefs in the writ petition yet, such             E
questions have a material bearing while considering the grant of
reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. [Para
19][825-G]
      1.5 Some proceedings are pending before the Company Law
Board between the parties in relation to their private property           F
disputes. If that be so, the parties to such proceedings have to
prosecute the proceedings before CLB in accordance with law
for obtaining appropriate reliefs. [Para 20][825-G-H; 826-A]
      1.6 It is not possible to express any opinion on merits for
want of jurisdiction. The parties, would be at liberty to take
                                                                          G
recourse to all judicial remedies, as may be available to them in
law, for adjudication of their respective grievances in appropriate
judicial forum against each other. It is left for the State authorities
to act against any such person(s) in accordance with law. [Paras
22, 23][826-B, C-D]
                                                                          H
822             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7390-
      7391 of 2009.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2008 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1499 of 2005 and Writ Petition
      No. 5718 of 2005.
B                                         WITH
             Civil Appeal Nos. 7405-7406 of 2009.
            Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Prabha Swami, Nikhil Swami,
      Ms. Divya Swami, M/S. Ap & J Chambers, S.Gowthaman, V.Prabhakar,
      Ms. Jyoti Parashar, N.J. Ramchandar, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Rajesh
C     Kumar, S. Thananjayan, Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, Sri Ram J.
      Thalapathy, Shilp Vinod, Pushkin Rajkumar, S. Rajappa, C.Paramasivam,
      Vinodh Kanna B., T. Harish Kumar, Mrs. Prabha Swami, Nikhil Swami,
      Ms. Divya Swami, B.Balaji, Sriram P., K.V.Vijaya Kumar, Ms. Purbitaa
      Mitra, R.Naresh Raj, B.Vinodh Kanna, Advs. for the appearing parties.
D            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
             In Civil Appeal Nos.7390-7391 of 2009
             1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
E     dated 04.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
      Writ Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.5718 of 2005 whereby
      the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal and the
      writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
              2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals,
      it is necessary to set out few relevant facts hereinbelow.
F
            3. The appellant herein is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1499 of
      2005 and writ petitioner in W.P. No. 5718 of 2005 whereas respondent
      Nos. 1 to 6 herein are the respondents of the said writ appeal and the
      writ petition out of which these appeals arise.
G           4. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Single Judge passed an interim
      order dated 07.03.2005. The appellant herein (writ petitioner) felt
      aggrieved by the said interim order and filed intra court appeal before
      the Division Bench.
            5. The Division Bench, with the consent of the parties, decided
      the main writ petition itself on merits and finding no merit therein dismissed
H
  N. SANKARANARAYANAN v. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU                                        823
     HOUSING BOARD [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by the impugned order,               A
which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave by
the writ petitioner in this Court.
       6. On perusal of the list of dates, special leave petitions, writ petition,
its counter, the documents enclosed in the appeal and lastly, the findings
of the Division Bench in the impugned order, it is clear that the dispute,           B
which was subject matter of the writ petition and which is now carried
in these appeals at the instance of the writ petitioner (appellant herein),
is essentially between the members of one family whose ancestor was
Late S. Narayanapillai. He died leaving behind six sons. Late S.
Narayanapillai owned several properties which, on his death, were
inherited by his legal representatives.                                              C
       7. The disputes arose between the members of the family of
Late S. Narayanapillai on his death. In order to resolve the disputes, the
members of the family, therefore, executed one memorandum of
understanding on 24.09.1998 in relation to their family properties.
Unfortunately, the disputes did not come to an end and, on the other                 D
hand, persisted amongst them, which led to filing of the cases in the
Company Law Board by some members against the other and also the
writ petition in question by the appellant herein.
       8. The dispute, which is subject matter of the writ petition out of
which these appeals arise, centers around to the land which is situated in           E
a scheme known as “Ashok Nagar Scheme” in Chennai. The dispute is
between the appellant, who is one of the members of the family and
respondent No. 2, which is a Private Limited Company formed by another
member of the family.
       9. One of the grievances of the appellant against respondent No.
2 in the writ petition is that respondent no 2 is running a petrol pump on           F
a portion of the land in question and has also let out its part to respondent
No. 3 who, in turn, is using the same as marriage hall for public under
the name “Udayam Kalyana Mandapam”. This act of respondent No. 2
is being objected to by the appellant amongst them.
       10. It is with these background facts and the grievance, which is             G
elaborated, the appellant filed a writ petition and sought therein a relief
for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the State authorities namely,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board (R-1), Chennai City Municipal Corporation
(R-4) and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (R- 5) directing
them jointly and severally to take appropriate action in law against
                                                                                     H
824             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and restrain them from continuing with their
      activities on the land. According to the appellant, the activities undertaken
      by respondent No. 3 on the land in question are illegal, hazardous and
      against the public safety inasmuch as they are being carried in violation
      of several provisions of the laws in force.
B            11. As mentioned above, the Division Bench dismissed the writ
      petition finding no merit therein with the following reasons in Para 17,
      which reads as under:
            “17. A perusal of the records produced before this Court
            leaves no iota of doubt that principally the dispute now
C           raised before this Court is a private dispute between the
            various family members having contesting the claims to be
            on the Board apart from those relating to the affairs of the
            Company. It is an admitted fact that the company is a closely
            held company by a family members of six brothers. The
            present dispute is nothing but a trial for the show of their
D           respective strength to each other herein. A petition before
            the Company Law Board is pending consideration as
            regards the continuance of the directorship of Mr.
            Muthusami. Whatever be the merits of the petition before
            the Company Law Board, taking note of the various
E           contentions, which included a dispute with reference to the
            area occupied by the Theatre and the construction of the
            mandapam and the petrol pump, this Court in the order
            passed on 19.9.2007 in C.M.A. No.1900 of 2007 has rightly
            directed the Company Law Board to dispose of the main
            petition by 31.1.2008.”
F
             12. The question, which arises for consideration in these appeals,
      is whether the Division Bench was justified in dismissing the appellant’s
      writ petition on the aforementioned reasoning.
            13. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
      record of the case. Having heard the learned counsel, we are inclined to
G
      agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Division
      Bench in the impugned order.
            14. In our considered opinion also, the writ petition filed by the
      appellant was wholly misconceived and deserved dismissal at the
      threshold.
H
  N. SANKARANARAYANAN v. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU                                       825
     HOUSING BOARD [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       15. As rightly observed by the Division Bench, the dispute sought            A
to be raised by the appellant in his writ petition was essentially a private
property dispute between the members of one family of which the appellant
and respondent No. 2 are the members.
       16. By indirect means such as the one resorted to by the writ
petitioner (appellant herein) by filing the writ petition, a dispute inter se       B
private parties of the nature mentioned above could not be allowed to be
raised in the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for
seeking issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities in
relation to the properties in question.
       17. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not file the writ petition   C
in his capacity as public-spirited person, i.e., Public Interest Litigation
(PIL). It was, on the other hand, a writ petition was filed by the appellant
essentially to settle his personal property rights disputes qua respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. It is a settled law that no writ petition can be entertained
for issuance of any writ against any private individual in respect of any
private property dispute. The remedy in such case lies in civil Courts.             D

       18. In other words, it is a settled law that the questions such as,
who is the owner of the land in question, the appellant or respondent
No. 2 or any other member of their family, whether the land in question
was let out by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and, if so, when,
why and for what purpose, who had the right to let out the said land                E
(appellant or respondent No. 2 or any other member of the family), what
was the arrangements, if any, made in the memorandum of settlement
in relation to the land in question inter se members of the family, whether
it was breached or not and, if so, by whom, what activities are being
carried on the said land and, if so, by whom, whether such activities are           F
legal or illegal etc. are not the questions which can be raised by any
private individual against other private individual in the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
       19. Even if the writ petitioner did not raise pointedly these questions
for claiming reliefs in the writ petition yet, in our view, such questions          G
have a material bearing while considering the grant of reliefs claimed by
the writ petitioner in the writ petition.
      20. It is not in dispute that some proceedings are pending before
the Company Law Board between the parties in relation to their private
property disputes. If that be so, the parties to such proceedings have to
                                                                                    H
826                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     prosecute the proceedings before CLB in accordance with law for
      obtaining appropriate reliefs.
            21. Before parting, we consider it apposite to mention that we
      have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Rather, it is
      not possible to express any opinion for want of jurisdiction. The parties,
B     therefore, will be at liberty to take recourse to all judicial remedies, as
      may be available to them in law, for adjudication of their respective
      grievances in appropriate judicial forum against each other.
             22. Similarly, it is for the State authorities to see as to whether any
      person(s) has/have contravened or/and is/are contravening any
C     provision(s) of any Act or Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes in
      any manner while using the properties and, if so, what action is called
      for qua such persons and against the activities carried on by such person(s)
      in law. We, however, express no opinion on any of these issues and
      leave it for the State authorities to act against any such person(s) in
      accordance with law.
D
            23. We also make it clear that all such disputes between the parties
      concerned on its merits will be decided strictly in accordance with law
      by the Court/Tribunal/Authority, as the case may be, uninfluenced by
      any observation made by the High Court in the impugned order and by
      this Court in this order.
E
             24. In the light of the foregoing discussion and with the
      aforementioned observations and the liberty, we find no merit in these
      appeals. The appeals thus fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim order,
      if any, passed stands vacated.

F             In Civil Appeal Nos.7405-7406 of 2009
            These appeals are filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petition
      and the writ appeal against the final judgment and order dated 04.03.2008
      passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.1499 of
      2005 and W.P. No.5718 of 2005.
G            In view of the order passed above in CA Nos.7390-7391 of 2009,
      these appeals are also dismissed.


      Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeals dismissed.

H