Writ Court Cannot Adjudicate Ownership Disputes in Public Interest Litigation: SC

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court direction to demolish 54 shops, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of India, 1950 cannot be used to resolve complex disputes over land title or ownership. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that such matters require civil adjudication and cannot be summarily decided in a Public Interest Litigation.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The writ court could not have entered into the field of such investigation and a remedy before the civil court or any other remedy available in law would be the correct recourse... travelling into the area to adjudicate the titular issues would be a wrongful exercise of public interest jurisdiction."

Addressing the procedural lapse of the High Court in failing to hear the affected shop allottees, the Supreme Court noted that the right to trade was at stake. The Court has following directions:

"The impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2014 as well as orders dated 15.05.2015 passed in Review Petition Nos. 123 of 2015 and 125 of 2015 by the High Court are set aside. The PIL petition before the High Court is dismissed. It would, however, be open to State to take appropriate action, if it can, under law against the Municipality for raising illegal constructions. This Court does not express any opinion on the merits on that count."

Violation of Natural Justice and Review Jurisdiction

The Apex Court found that the High Court committed a manifest mistake by rejecting review petitions filed by the shop allottees who were never made parties to the original PIL. Invoking principles under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Constitution of India, 1950, the Court held that the exclusion of necessary parties who face serious civil consequences constitutes an "error apparent on the face of record."

Relying on Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale ( "1959 SCC OnLine 10": 1959 CaseBase(SC) 111) and T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, the bench clarified that an error apparent is one that is obvious and patent, requiring no long-drawn process of reasoning. Further, Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury and subsequent rulings like S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others ( "(2022) 17 SCC 255": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 314), S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Others ( "(2023) 13 SCC 515": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 1047), and Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrated Sales Service Limited and Another were cited to reinforce that such errors must strike on mere looking at the record.

Title Disputes Beyond Article 226 Scope

Background:

The controversy began when a PIL was filed alleging that Nagar Palika, Khachrod, had illegally constructed shops on 'Dussehra Maidan' land reserved for cultural festivals. The High Court ordered demolition based on a Tehsildar's report, despite conflicting claims of ownership between the Municipal Council and the State Government. The Municipal Council argued the land vested in it under Section 100 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court analyzed maps and found that the shops were built on the boundary, far from the actual open area of the Maidan, causing no real obstruction to festivals. The Court cited Sohan Lal vs. Union of India ( "(1957) 1 SCC 439": 1957 CaseBase(SC) 96), State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh ( "1993 Supp (1) SCC 306": 1992 CaseBase(SC) 745), and Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil ( "(2010) 8 SCC 329": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 817) to underscore that writ courts must avoid deciding rival claims of title. It concluded that the PIL appeared to have been filed with oblique motives and operated to damage legitimate private interests.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos._______ OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16483-85 of 2015)
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 435
Case Title: PREM PORWAL AND OTHERS ETC. vs. JAGDEESH CHANDRA PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Advocate; Mr. Brijender Chahar, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Ishit Saharia, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 538