AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J.
1) By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek following prayers, among others:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question or interfere in the petitioners property, namely, Doon Side Estate situated at Chandalgarhi, Mussoorie, Dehradun."
2) Brief facts of the case are that the property in question, namely, Doon Side situated at Chandalgarhi, Mussoorie, District Dehradun was initially purchased by the erstwhile Maharaja Narendra Shah of Tehri Garhwal State by way of sale deed dated 21.09.1945 from the Imperial Bank. After the merger of the then Princely State of Tehri Garhwal with the United Province, three properties, viz., Doonside View Cottage, Saxon Villa Main Building and Saxon Cottage stood transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a government order transferring the aforesaid three buildings to the Police Department by the Public Works Department. However, the property in question, namely, Doonside Estate, Chandalgarhi, Mussoorie was not included in the aforesaid Government Order dated 31.10.1953 as the same was private property of the then Maharaja late Narendra Shah. On the request of the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, Maharaja Manvendra Shah (successor of Maharaja Narendra Shah) gave some land for holding camps of police personals in public interest and allowed them for camping during summer on some portion of vacant land of the building Doon Side in public interest. Till 1973, the name and possession of Maharaja Narendra Shah continued to be recorded in the assessment register of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie, but the name of Superintendent of Police came to be recorded as tenant in Doon Side in column 5 of the Assessment register of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie, but the name of the owner remained as Maharaja Narendra Shah. Vide letters dated 14.05.2002, 29.05.2002 and 22.07.2002, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun asked the State House Officer, Mussoorie to ensure the mutation of the police department in the revenue records.
3) The police department got the name mutated in revenue records. Vide registered sale deed dated 20.03.2014, Maharaja Manvendra Shah transferred the property in question to the petitioners and, since then, the petitioners are in continuous possession of the property in question.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the property in question was the personal property of Raja Tehri and it was never vested in the Central Government or in the State Government. However, the police authorities are extending threat to dispossess the petitioners therefrom for the purpose of holding police camps. Vide order dated 16.09.2015, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo qua the possession and nature of the property till furthers orders.
5) Perusal of Annexure-11 to the writ petition reveals that the SSP, Dehradun wrote a letter to the Station House Officer to get prepared the documents for transfer of ownership of the property in question and try to contact with the owner of the property in question. Perusal of order dated 31.10.1955 (Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit of respondent nos.2 & 3) shows that His Excellency, the Governor has been pleased to sanction the transfer of three properties, i.e., Doon Side View Cottage, Saxon Village Main Building and Saxon Villa Cottage to the Police Department w.e.f. 18.04.1953. Surprisingly, the copy of said letter was not served to the owners of these properties.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the property in question, namely, Doon Side situated at Chandalgarhi, Mussoorie, Dehradun is a self-acquired property of the then Maharaja Narendra Shah of Tehri Garhwal, which was purchased from the Imperial Bank by way of sale deed. It was further contended that Doon Side View Cottage and Doon Side Estate/Doon Side are two separate properties and cannot be said to be one and, as such, no question arises with regard to the exclusive possession of the police department.
7) Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and contended that late Maharaja Manvendra Shah was neither the lawful owner nor in the possession of the property in question; the property in question was vested upon the Government after merger of Tehri Estate in the Union of India under the Merger State Act, 1949. The petitioners, who allegedly purchased the property, has no right to claim ownership over the property as the said property was vested upon the Government way back in the year 1950 and has been handed over to the police department in the year 1953. The said property was taken by the Public Works Department from the Collector, Dehradun vide Government Order dated 27.10.1950. The Doon Side View Cottage, Doon Side and Doon Side Estate are not separate properties and the same is known as Doon Side. The property in question is under the exclusive possession of the police department since 1954.
8) The bone of contention of the petitioner is that the petitioners are in possession of the property in question and the respondents cannot remove them from the possession of the disputed property without following due process of law.
9) Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question. Further, it was contended that since there is no cause of action, hence, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued on the basis of mere apprehension.
10) After considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that when disputed questions of fact are involved, this Court cannot adjudicate upon such dispute as it is for the parties to approach the civil court to decide the issue involved in the matter. Since there is no cause of action and the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction, hence, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued on mere apprehension of dispossession from the property in question. It is made clear that the respondent authority cannot dispossess / remove any person from the possession of a disputed property without following due process of law.
11) Since this Court vide interim order dated 16.09.2015 directed the parties to maintain status-quo, hence, it is directed that it shall be open to either of the parties to seek appropriate relief by pursuing the legal remedies. In other words, the parties may get their dispute adjudicated upon by a competent civil court and once their title to property in question is decided and declared by a competent civil court, thereafter, it is open to the parties to approach the competent authority. The interim order dated 16.09.2015 passed by this Court shall continue to operate for a period of six months from today and, till then, the parties may get the title decided from the competent civil court. The civil court may decide the suit, if any, within a period of six weeks from today.
12) It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of present writ petition and this Court has not touched upon the merits of the claim projected by the respective parties and it is for the competent civil court to adjudicate the same based on the pleadings and the quality of evidence tendered before it.
13) In view of the observations made above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.