Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that there was a disputed question of fact regarding the delivery of possession, which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments (Gunwant Kaur, Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., ABL International Ltd., Unitech Ltd., Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil) establishing that High Courts have the power to decide factual disputes under Article 226, especially when the State's or its instrumentality's actions are arbitrary and unreasonable, and the facts are not complex or require elaborate oral evidence. The Court found the respondents' plea of actual physical possession to be false, citing their own letter dated August 28, 2018, to the District Administration seeking security. The Court concluded that the respondents' actions were arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the Single Judge's judgment was set aside, and respondents 2 and 3 were directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 11,11,705, less any amount already paid, with 9% interest per annum from March 15, 2017, until the date of actual payment. They were also directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant within eight weeks.

Facts

The appellant, as the legal heir of the original writ petitioner, challenged a Single Judge's order. The original petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 11,11,705 paid to respondents 2 and 3 (Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority and its Regional Director) for land allotment in Patratu industrial area. An allotment letter was issued on June 28, 2016, for plot 5A. The petitioner paid the amount by July 21, 2016, and an additional Rs. 4,000 on March 15, 2017. The petitioner alleged that despite signing a 'physical possession certificate' on July 5, 2017, actual possession was never given. On August 25, 2017, when attempting to take possession, villagers with weapons confronted them, claiming the land. The petitioner alleged the authorities were aware the land was disputed. Despite representations, possession was not provided, leading to the writ petition seeking refund with interest, citing the petitioner's cancer diagnosis.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in holding that there was a disputed question of fact regarding the delivery of possession of the land, precluding adjudication in writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not delivering actual physical possession of the allotted land to the petitioner, despite receiving the full payment, was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the physical possession certificate and subsequent letters were obtained without actual possession being delivered. They relied on the respondents' own letter dated August 28, 2018, to the District Administration seeking security, which indicated the presence of anti-social elements and the inability to provide possession. The petitioner contended that clause 22(1)(i) of the Regulations, used for refund, was inapplicable as they had not surrendered the land but rather faced non-delivery of possession. They cited Supreme Court judgments like Gunwant Kaur, Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., ABL International Ltd., Unitech Ltd., and Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil to assert the High Court's power to decide factual disputes in writ jurisdiction when the State's action is arbitrary. Respondents' Arguments: Respondents 2 and 3 admitted receiving the payment and issuing an allotment letter. They claimed a physical possession certificate was issued on July 5, 2017, and the petitioner wrote on August 3, 2017, for lease deed registration, acknowledging possession. They alleged the petitioner had not started construction despite having possession. They also stated that due to disturbances by anti-social elements, they had requested police force. They issued a show cause notice for cancellation due to non-commencement of industrial activity. They refunded 55% of the allotment price under clause 22(1)(i) of Regulations for surrender within three years, deducting various charges.