Disputes Regarding Title, Possession Not Subject Matter Of Writ Jurisdiction: Jharkhand HC Dismisses Plea Against Housing Board's Interference

The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking relief against alleged interference with the petitioner's possession and ownership of property, while ruling that disputes involving questions of "right, title, interest and possession" require evidence and cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.

Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, presiding over the case, stated, “This Court finds that there is serious dispute in connection with right, title, interest and possession with respect to the property involved in the present case.”

“This Court is of the considered view that the status of Saroj Kumar- the original allottee cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Further, it also cannot be decided as to whether Sailesh Kumar Gupta is son of Saroj Kumar. The fact remains that Sailesh Kumar Gupta has not entered appearance in the present proceedings. Considering the nature of dispute involved in the present case, it is apparent that it requires evidence to resolve the dispute which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted in this writ proceedings,” she further remarked.

The petitioner had approached the court seeking relief against the interference of the Housing Board, which had issued a letter asking her to surrender the registered deed of the property. The petitioner argued that she lawfully purchased the property after obtaining necessary permissions from the Housing Board. She alleged that the Housing Board's interference, based on claims that the original allottee, Saroj Kumar, was alive, was unwarranted.

Saroj Kumar, one of the respondents, appeared before the court claiming to be the original allottee and asserting that respondent no. 2, who sold the property, was not his son. He alleged that a fraud was committed to execute the sale deed in favor of the petitioner.

The court noted, “one Saroj Kumar has been made respondent no. 3 in the present case who has appeared through a counsel and claims that he is alive and Sailesh Kumar Gupta is not his son. The respondent no. 3 also claims that he is the original allottee of the property involved in the present case. Further, the respondent no. 3 has also claimed that they are in physical possession of the property. ”

It was also observed that respondent no. 2, Sailesh Kumar Gupta, who executed the sale deed, did not appear in the proceedings despite notice. The court stated, “Sailesh Kumar Gupta, s/o Late Saroj Kumar has been made party in the present proceedings as respondent no. 2, but nobody has entered appearance in spite of notice.”

The Housing Board submitted that its letter merely sought the petitioner's cooperation to initiate steps for cancellation of the deed through civil proceedings. It also highlighted the entire background of the matter, including the dispute regarding Saroj Kumar's identity, in its communication to the petitioner.

After considering the facts, the court held, “Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is certainly open to any of the parties to take appropriate steps in accordance with law with regard to right, title, interest etc. in connection with the property involved in the present case and also in connection with the status /identity of one or the other person/party.”

The court clarified that the dismissal would not affect any proceedings initiated by the parties in the appropriate forum.

“It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not have any consequence in any such proceedings, if initiated by one or the other party,” the court concluded.

Case Title: Smt. Bimla Devi vs Jharkhand State Housing Board

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 184

Click Here To Read Judgement