Article 226 | If there are serious substantive disputes, the High Court should refer the parties to alternate remedies: High Court
Last Updated on October 17, 2023 by News Desk
Issue: The High court recently held that when there are significant factual disputes, the High Court should refer the parties to alternate remedies.
Facts of the Case: A disagreement emerged over the custody of excess land proclaimed by the Competent Authority in 1977 in the matter of State of U.P. & ANR v. Ehsan & ANR. Ehsan, the first respondent, claimed the possession was never taken, despite official documents indicating otherwise. Over the years, there were three rounds of litigation, with the High Court ultimately declaring in favor of Ehsan. Given the unresolved factual issue and the extensive legal history, the Supreme Court debated if the High Court should have heard the writ petition.
Arguments Presented by Parties: The State claimed that possession was seized in 1979 and refuted Ehsan’s assertion. Ehsan claimed that possession was challenged, citing a lack of evidence to support the State’s case.
Reasoning of the Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that severe factual issues should encourage courts to examine other remedies, especially where earlier rounds of litigation have failed to settle the matter. The Court recognized the ambiguity of possession and the lack of evidence supporting Ehsan’s claim of ongoing possession. The Court stressed that its views were exclusively for determining writ jurisdiction and did not exclude litigation on the merits.
Judgement: The Supreme Court, headed by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, decided in favor of the State. It deemed the High Court’s conclusion erroneous in light of the unsettled possession problem, the lengthy delay in bringing the writ case, and the High Court’s earlier avoidance of resolving the subject. The Court emphasized that severe factual disagreements required transfer to other procedures. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court ought to have avoided determining the possession question and instead authorized Ehsan to pursue his claim via a suit. The ruling noted that the criticisms made were limited to the writ jurisdiction issue, allowing provision for a complete review of the case in a litigation.
Case title: State of U.P. & ANR v. Ehsan & ANR
Written by: Nikita Shankar
