2019 INSC 0089
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7390­7391 OF 2009
N. Sankaranarayanan     ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7405­7406  OF 2009
Aruna Theatres & Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd.     ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
In Civil Appeal  Nos.7390­7391 of 2009
1. These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final
judgment   and   order   dated   04.03.2008   passed   by
1

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.
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.
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. 
2

5.   The   Division   Bench,     with   the   consent   of   the
parties,   decided   the   main   writ   petition   itself   on
merits   and   finding   no   merit   therein   dismissed   the
writ   petition   filed   by   the   appellant   herein   by   the
impugned   order,   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,   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
3

which,   on   his   death,   were   inherited   by   his   legal
representatives.   
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   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   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
4

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   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 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 (R­1), Chennai
City   Municipal   Corporation   (R­4)   and   Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority (R­ 5) directing
them jointly and severally to take appropriate action
5

in   law   against   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.
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
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   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.
6

Muthusami.     Whatever  be   the   merits  of
the   petition   before   the   Company   Law
Board,   taking   note   of   the   various
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.”
  
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   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.
7

15.  As rightly observed by the Division Bench, the
dispute   sought   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  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   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
8

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.
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   (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
9

the   said   land   and,   if   so,     by   whom,   whether   such
activities   are   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 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   prosecute   the   proceedings
before   CLB   in   accordance   with   law   for   obtaining
appropriate reliefs.
10

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,  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   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
11

act   against   any   such   person(s)   in   accordance   with
law.
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.
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.
In Civil Appeal  Nos.7405­7406 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
12

by  the  High  Court of  Judicature at  Madras in  W.A.
No.1499 of 2005 and W.P. No.5718 of 2005.
In   view   of   the   order   passed   above   in   CA
Nos.7390­7391   of   2009,   these   appeals   are   also
dismissed.    
             ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                   
         
....……..................................J.
        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
January 31, 2019.
13