SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. INSC 1094

1. Name of the Case: Santosh Sood vs. Gajendra Singh & Ors 2009

2. Facts: The appellant, Santosh Sood, obtained a loan of ₹9 lakhs from the State Bank of Indore for constructing a building to be leased to the bank. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Gajendra Singh (Respondent No. 1), alleging that the property in question belonged to the Nagar Palika (Municipal Council) and the appellant had illegally occupied it. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh disposed of the PIL, directing the Nagar Palika to take steps to dispossess the appellant without giving her an opportunity of being heard. The appellant argued that the High Court relied on statements that misrepresented her ownership. The PIL involved complex questions of title, which should not have been decided summarily. A civil suit regarding the property (Civil Suit No. 178-A of 2006) was pending in the Civil Judge’s Court in Sheopur, where the appellant had secured an injunction against dispossession.

3. Issue(s): 1) Whether the High Court erred in directing the dispossession of the appellant in a PIL without giving her an opportunity to be heard. 2) Whether a PIL is maintainable in matters involving disputed property ownership.

4. Holding(s): 1) Yes, the High Court erred by passing the order without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing. 2) No, a PIL is not the appropriate remedy for resolving private property disputes or title-related issues.

5. Rationale: Violation of Natural Justice: The High Court’s order of dispossession was based on oral submissions without giving the appellant a chance to defend her case. This violated the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard). Improper Scope of PIL: PILs are intended for addressing public wrongs, not private disputes or issues involving conflicting property claims. The pending civil suit regarding the property should have been the appropriate forum for resolving ownership disputes. Judicial Precedent on PILs: Citing Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, the Court emphasized that PILs should not interfere with due process in private disputes unless there are compelling public interests. Directions for Civil Suit: The Supreme Court directed the Civil Judge, Sheopur, to expedite the hearing and resolve Civil Suit No. 178-A of 2006 within three months. The appeals were allowed with the following directions: The Civil Judge, Sheopur was instructed to dispose of the pending suit expeditiously, ideally within three months. If no injunction was in place, the Nagar Palika was permitted to take lawful steps regarding the property. The Bank was directed to deposit rent payments in court, which would be disbursed to the successful party upon the suit's resolution. No costs were awarded.

References (1) SANTOSH SOOD v. GAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. INSC 1094 (2) Indian Kanoon. <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1282328/> (3) Ibid