HC's Decision Based On Admitted Documents & Not Disputed Facts: Supreme Court Dismisses Orissa Govt Plea

The Supreme Court recently upheld the judgment by the Orissa High Court in a land dispute involving the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa (IDCO) and the heirs of a late Surgeon Vice Admiral. The Vice Admiral had filed a writ petition against the State of Orissa and IDCO before the High Court of Orissa. The main ground of challenge against the order of the High Court was that it had recorded a finding on disputed facts, which is beyond its writ jurisdiction. 

A division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti while dismissing the appeal held that the High Court had no exceeded its jurisdiction. 

“The serious objection of the State against impugned Judgment is that the High Court has decided disputed questions of facts. After perusing the Judgment, we consider that the High Court recorded a finding not by deciding a fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement but from the record and admitted documents. The solitary ground raised against the impugned Judgment, therefore, deserves to be rejected” the Apex Court said.

The dispute centered around a plot of land measuring 4.800 acres assigned to the Vice Admiral by the government. He was assigned Government land under an existing policy for having participated on the frontline of the North-East Border in the Indo-China war. Meanwhile, the State requested the Tehsildar to process the alienation of land identified by IDCO.  He subsequently approached the High Court praying for the state to not interfere with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and to restrain the continuation of resumption proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar.

“From the record, it appears that the alienation of land in favour of IDCO commenced on the request of IDCO of identified land but not after verifying whether Government land claimed by the State is free from encumbrances and available for assignment.” The Apex Court observed.

The High Court had held that the land's identification and the initiation of resumption proceedings by the Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar, were unlawful. The High Court had also held that the land leased out to the petitioner had been properly identified.

Adv. Subhasish Mohanty, appearing for the State of Orissa and Sr. Adv. Jana Kalyan Das appearing for IDCO, argued that the High Court, recorded findings on disputed questions of fact and this could not have been done under its writ jurisdiction. It was argued that the High Court entertaining a Writ Petition and adjudicating a dispute of this nature would not be proper.

The petitioner argued that the identification of petition land by the High Court was based on the documents issued by the respondents. It was argued that the High Court did use its discretionary jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

The Apex Court examined the sequence of events, including the land assignment and subsequent claims by both IDCO and the State. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision was based on documented evidence rather than disputed facts, and that the State's objections to the judgment on these grounds were unwarranted. The Court found the method employed by the State for dispossessing the petitioner to be unconstitutional and illegal.

“By issuing the Resumption Notice, the Tahsildar admitted Writ Petitioner’s possession of the petition land. It is evident from the record that even before initiating proceedings for recovery, the possession of allotted land of an extent of acres 42.870 decimals is stated to have been given to IDCO by the State. It is also not clear whether the assignment in any manner overlaps with the petition land assigned to Vice Admiral Ganesh Prasad Panda. The State assumed the power of re-entry of the land settled on a higher pedestal and that the resumption of land in favour of the State as automatic.” The Apex Court concluded

The Apex Court concluded that the High Court had considered the prayers not by entertaining a finding on a disputed question of fact but on the material on record and dismissed the appeal. 

Case Title:  Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Of Orissa V. Late Surgeon Vice Admiral Gp Panda Through His Legal Heirs And Others Civil Appeal No. 5151 Of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713

Click here to read/download judgement