Case title:
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs Orbit Motels And Inns Private Limited, Nagpur & Ors.
Date of Order:
6th December 2022
Bench:
Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Parties:
Appellant- Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Respondent- Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited, Nagpur & Ors.
SUBJECT
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Bombay High Court ordering the Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd to turn over possession of a piece of land to a private company. Considering that there was a "cloud over" the firm's title to the land, a bench of judges led by M R Shah and M M Sundresh stated that the high court should not have heard the case.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 39 of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978-
Bar of jurisdiction
The Central Government, the Metro Railway Administration, any officer or other employee of that Government, the Metro Railway, or any person working for or on behalf of the Metro Railway Administration shall not be subject to any action or application for injunction in any court with respect to any work performed, purported to have been performed, or intended to be performed by it or the said administration, such officer or other employee, such person, in connection with the construction of any metro rail.
BRIEF FACTS
Feeling wronged and unsatisfied with the decision and order made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench in Nagpur in Writ Petition by which the High Court allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondent—original writ petitioner—and ordered the appellant—Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited—to leave the property in question and turn over possession of the same to the original writ petitioner by holding that the Metro entered the premises by force and therefore it is unlawful and unreasonable. Metro further appealed to the Apex Court.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the possession of the land by the Metro was illegal or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- Senior Attorney K.V. Viswanathan, speaking on behalf of the Metro, argued that the High Court erred in interpreting Section 39 of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 by concluding that a civil suit could not have been brought since the Civil Court's authority was barred.
- He argued that the restriction on civil lawsuits would only be applicable in situations where the Act offered an adequate remedy or forum.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- A registered deed of lease in favour of the respondent was claimed to exist by senior attorney Kapil Sibal on behalf of the respondent.
- The entire piece of land in question was transferred by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent via lease for a duration of 30 years with the intention of building the hotel complex.
- He further argued that, in that interpretation of the situation, the respondent's peaceful possession could not have been disturbed or interfered with according to the due process of law.
ANALYSIS
- The appellant cannot be considered to be in illegal possession, according to the division bench of Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, who noted that the appellant was allotted the property in question in accordance with the allotment order and is in occupation and possession of the land, which is being used for a public purpose, namely the Nagpur Metro Rail Project.
- As a result, the High Court made a significant error in determining that the appellant is occupying and possessing the subject land illegally.
- The original writ petitioner's writ petition could not have been entertained by the High Court until and until the original writ petitioner's rights in the subject land were established, which will be decided in the Civil Suit that is currently underway.
- It was stated that if the responder wins the lawsuit he filed, in such situation, it may seek compensation, but a public project cannot be put on hold until and unless its rights are established in a pending lawsuit.
CONCLUSION
- The allotment order from August 2015 and the possession granted to the metro corporation as a result of it, according to the bench, cannot be viewed as illegal in and of itself.
- It accepted the Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.'s appeal and stated that the high court's "imputed judgement and decision rendered by the high court is unsustainable under the circumstances."
- The bench overturned the high court's decision and ordered that the civil case currently before the appropriate court be resolved legally and according to its own merits.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
