TeamCode-TO35

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF
….…………………….

A ..Appellant

V
B .Respondent

….……………..

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

….…………….

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Voice of C.U. Law Students Moot Court Competition 2021

 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of abbreviations 2
Index of authorities 3
Statement of jurisdiction 4
Statement of facts 5
Issues raised 6
Summary of arguments 7-10
Prayer 11
 LIST ABBREVEATIONS

SC Supreme Court
CHC Calcutta High Court
HMHC Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ors Others
Anr Another
& And
Pvt Private
Ltd Limited
Hon’ble Honourable
BL Block Land
LRO Land Reforms Officer
 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
I. West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
II. The Constitution of India, 1950

CASES
1. M/S Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd v Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation
(IDCO) & Ors, SC 2015
2. Parminder Kumar Kanwar v Koram, HPHC, 2018
3. State of Rajasthan v Bhawani Singh & Ors. SC, 1992
4. Municipal Corpoartion, Aurangabad v The State of Maharashtra And Ors. SC, 2015
5. State of U.P. & Anr. v Raja Ram Jaiswal & Anr SC 1985
6. Municipal Corpoartion, Aurangabad v The State of Maharashtra And Ors. SC, 2015
 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble District Forum,
the facts are summarised as follows:

1. A had applied before the Block Land and reforms Authority for the
mutation of his name in the record of rights.
2. A had bought the said piece of land from E.
3. After E’s death, B, E’s legal heir objected to the mutation stating that
the sake deed was fraudulent and as such, no right was transferred from E
to A.
4. The authorities, owing to the objection raised by B rejected the
application.
5. After this, A filed for mutation under the District Land and Land
Reforms Authority, where the application had been pending for a long
time. Due to this inordinate delay, A filed a writ petition challenging the
order of the BL and LRO.
6. B, being a party to the case, objected that the Hon’ble High Court isn’t
the appropriate place of jurisdiction for such a case. Due to this, a single
bench of the Hon’ble High Court rejected the petition, following which it
was brought before a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court.
 6

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum for such appeal.
2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable.
3. Whether A should be granted what he sought.
 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum for such

appeal.
The Counsel for the Respondent would like to contend that the Hon’ble High Court isn’t
the appropriate forum of appeal for such a petition. In line and in agreement with the
judgment of the Hon’ble single bench, it seems to us that appealing before the Hon’ble
High Court was seen by the appellant as a method of attaining a ruling in his favour by
circumventing the due process of law and is not only inappropriate but also underhanded
and coarse.
The argument can be understood better if there is a step by step breakdown of the different
facets of the nature and consequences of such an appeal and how the Hon’ble High Court
is not the place for such an appeal.

I) Dispute Question of Fact

In the case of M/S Swati Ferro Alloys1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the writ
petition submitted by the appellant was full of disputed facts and the petition couldn’t be
entertained under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution since factual disputes cannot be
decided in the proceeding of a writ. The writ petition was therefore, dismissed on the
grounds of a dispute of facts.
This case and judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court makes it clear that if there is a dispute
of fact in the matter of the case, such a petition is inadmissible under Article 226 of the
Indian Constitution. As can be gleaned from the facts of the case presented above, the
very fact that A is the rightful owner of the land has been disputed by B and therefore the
attempts of A at circumvention of the due process of law are futile and are not worth the
time and consideration of the Hon’ble High Court.
In order to clarify further our contention, the Counsel for the Respondent would like to
draw the attention of the Hon’ble court to the case of Parminder Kumar Kanwar2 where
the Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that A writ petition is not appropriate in cases
where there needs to be a fundamental elaboration of evidence due to a dispute in the facts
of the case. Where there needs to be an examination of whether the facts stated therein are
right or wrong, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
In a bid to clarify our position, the Counsel for the Respondent would like to reiterate the
facts of the case so that the above judgment can be placed and situated in the context of

1
M/S Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd v Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) & Ors, SC 2015
2
Parminder Kumar Kanwar v Koram, HPHC, 2018
 8
our matter. Since the facts of the case were contested by both parties with B claiming that
the sale deed was fraudulent, there ought to be at first a thorough examination of evidence
in regards of the truthfulness of the facts and how the actual events happened. After such
an establishment of facts that mirror the truth can only any sort of writ petition can be
filed. As can be seen, such an elaborate examination didn’t take place and the matter was
still in consideration of the District Land and Land Reforms Authority when A hastily
filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court. Such an irresponsible endeavour on A’s
part is to be condemned and the petition, in the humble opinion of the Counsel for the
Respondent, be dismissed.
Ii) Dispute Question of fact as regards to title
Not only is the case a matter of dispute of facts, the title of the property is itself disputed.
In claiming that the sale deed was fraudulent, B has thrown into jeopardy, A’s claim of the
property which he wanted to be have mutated. Courts all over India have resoundingly
affirmed the proposition that when the title of a case is in dispute, a writ petition cannot be
filed in regards to that.
In the case of Bhawani Singh3, the Supreme Court observed that questions relating to title
cannot be delineated, inquired into or adjudicated in a writ petition.In this case,
overturning the judgment of the Hon’ble single bench, the division bench decided against
allowing the writ petition. Bhawani Singh had purchased a plot of land under a sale deed
executed by Maharaja Manisingh of Jaipur. She then applied to the Municipal Corporation
to construct a boundary on all four sides of the property and certain other constructions.
After having waited for a reply, she went to the Rajasthan High Court and filed a writ
petition. The respondents took a plea that Bhawani Singh had no right over the said plot of
land and therefore brought the title of the property itself into question. Following this, the
Apex Court observed that since the title of the suit was being contested, the writ petition
was invalid.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad4, it was seen that mutation of a
property doesn’t result in the conferring of the title of the property. If there lies a dispute
in regards to the title of the property for which mutation is sought, the writ cannot go into
such dispute and no orders in regards to the writ can be passed unless the dispute is
resolved by the appropriate authorities.
It is settled that a mutation doesn’t confer any right or title in favour of anyone and neither
does the cancellation of a mutation extinguish the right of the party which was owner of
the property.
From both these cases it can be abstracted that a property over which looms a dispute of
title cannot be brought as a writ petition. A’s claim over the property was contested by B

3
State of Rajasthan v Bhawani Singh & Ors. SC, 1992
4
Municipal Corpoartion, Aurangabad v The State of Maharashtra And Ors. SC, 2015
 9
and as long as that dispute isn’t settled, no action can be brought under writ petition. Even
if A went through with the mutation of the property, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the
title would e transferred to him and the dispute would still have arisen regardless of the
mutation, invalidating the writ petition.

Iii) Alternative Statutory remedy

In the case of Raja Ram Jaiswal5, it was held by the Apex Court that when there is an
institution or body that has been vested with statutory authority the Court should not
ordinarily usurp such power and pass a mandatory order directing the body with statutory
authority to grant a specific sort of relief as the Court asks, unless the Court feels that
there is absolutely no reason or justification for the institution to refuse what was asked of
them. In the opinion of the Counsel for the Respondent, in the present case, the refusal of
the Block Land and Land reform authorities to grant mutation in respect of the land in the
sole name of the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly unjustified or unreasonable or
arbitrary.
The judgment in the Raja Ram Jaiswal case was upheld in the case of Bimal Kumar
Ghosh6 amd the writ petition was dismissed because the Court didn’t feel as if it was
reasonable to interfere with the functioning of the Kolkata Municipal Corpoartion on the
basis of the petition.
In using the cases provided above, the Counsel for the Respondent would like to state that
the predicament of A wasn’t arbitrary or unreasonable. He was trying to get a disputed
property mutated and his application was placed under appropriate authorities. There is no
special circumstance that indicates that the Court needs to intervene in the functioning of
the due process and procedure of the District Land and Land Reforms Authority. A,
instead of following the due process in spirit of co-operation decided to hastily knock on
the door of the Hon’ble High Court without caring for either the disputes to be resolved or
the answer of the authorities in regards to his application. The usurpation of statutory
authority seems to the Cousel of the Respondent to be unreasonable and unnecessary.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable

The writ petition falters on many grounds. Firstly, the courts don’t entertain a writ when
there is a dispute regarding the facts of the case. Whether the transfer of property from E
to A is fraudulent is a cardinal fact of the case and that must be decided upon before any
such writ can be given its due consideration. There needs to be a uniform manner of the
facts of the case in which there is no dispute before a writ petition can be filed.
Furthermore, the title of the property is also disputed and contested. If B’s claim is

5
State of U.P. & Anr. v Raja Ram Jaiswal & Anr SC 1985
6
Bimal Kumar Ghosh v Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors CHC, 2017
 10
correct that A fraudulently executed the sale deed with E, then A would have no right
over the property he wants mutated. As such, the writ petition falls apart when the title
of the property itself is in jeopardy. As is the case in our matter.
Lastly, even if the property was mutated and the appropriate authorities had approved
such mutation, even then A’s claim over the property could still be disputed by B
resulting in a title dispute and therefore in another instance where we can see through
the cracks of the writ petition filed by A. In order to achieve his aims, A took to a hasty
notion of what he considered to be a rightful claim over his property. Upon legal
inspection, such a claim seems empty and whatever A’s reasons to go to the Hon’ble
High Court the petition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
In light of the arguments made above, the Counsel for the Respondent would like to
submit to the Hon’ble High Court that the writ petition is a house of cards.
Unsustainable, hasty and betraying a notion of distrust towards the due process of law.
3. Whether A should be granted what he sought
A sought a writ petition to be passed so that he could have the contested property
mutated. The Counsel for the Respondent would like to humbly submit that A’s petition
is not admissible in the Hon’ble High Court. In keeping with the judgment of the
Hon’ble single bench, the, we would ask the Court to rule that A’s writ petition is
invalid and his requests aren’t granted and the judgment of the single bench is upheld.
 11

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Respondent humbly pray before this
Hon’ble court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. That the Hon’ble High Court isn’t the appropriate forum of appeal and the writ
petition is maintainable.

2. That A is not granted the relief in form of the mutation of his land.

Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in light of equity, justice and good
conscience and for this act of kindness of Your Lordships the Respondent shall as
duty bound ever pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT