A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment in Sohan Lal v. Union of India, [1957] SCR 738, deals with the maintainability and scope of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when disputed questions of fact and private rights are involved. The Supreme Court overturned a Punjab High Court judgment directing restoration of property possession to a displaced person, Jagan Nath, who was earlier evicted without proper notice under the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950. The Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where intricate questions of title arise and directed that such matters should be adjudicated by a civil court. The judgment clarified that a writ of mandamus cannot generally lie against a private individual, particularly when the individual’s possession is bona fide and not collusive with state authorities. This judgment remains a cornerstone for understanding the limitations on the use of writs for resolving private disputes and the boundaries of judicial activism in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Keywords: Writ of Mandamus, Article 226, Public Premises (Eviction) Act, Title Dispute, Displaced Persons, Bona Fide Possession, Civil Court Jurisdiction

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Sohan Lal v. Union of India

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1954

iii) Judgment Date: 7th March, 1957

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justices Bhagwati, Jagannadhadas, J.L. Kapur, Govinda Menon, and Imam

vi) Author: Justice Imam

vii) Citation: [1957] SCR 738

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India

• Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1950

• Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1952

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None specifically overruled, but earlier High Court decisions including Khushal Singh v. Shri Rameshwar Dayal were disapproved.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:

• Constitutional Law

• Administrative Law

• Property Law

• Civil Procedure

• Human Rights Law (in relation to due process and displacement)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Post-partition India witnessed mass displacements. In response, the Government initiated various rehabilitation schemes. The West Patel Nagar housing scheme aimed to settle displaced persons who fulfilled specific eligibility criteria. In this context, Jagan Nath, a refugee from Pakistan, was found prima facie eligible and was moved into a government-constructed house. However, further scrutiny revealed he had already received land in East Punjab, making him ineligible under the housing policy. Consequently, he was evicted without serving the statutorily required notice under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950. The property was re-allotted to another displaced person, Sohan Lal, who had satisfied all formalities. Jagan Nath approached the Punjab High Court under Article 226, leading to an order directing restoration of possession, which was later challenged before the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Jagan Nath was a registered displaced person since December 31, 1947. He applied under the West Patel Nagar scheme and deposited ₹5,600 as the sale price for the property after being prima facie accepted for allotment. He was also asked to pay ground rent. On May 10, 1952, an Accommodation Officer placed his family into the house marked No. 35, West Patel Nagar, asserting possession on his behalf. However, on further review, the government found him ineligible due to his earlier allotment of agricultural land in Hissar. No allotment letter had been issued to him.

On September 27, 1952, without prior notice as mandated by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, the government evicted Jagan Nath using a warrant issued under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1952. The house was then re-allotted to Sohan Lal, who had applied on February 27, 1952, and was placed in possession on October 3, 1952.

Jagan Nath filed a writ petition under Article 226, seeking restoration of possession. The Punjab High Court allowed it, directing both the Union of India and Sohan Lal to restore the house. The Supreme Court was approached by Sohan Lal, challenging this decision.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued in matters involving disputed private rights and title to property?

ii. Whether such a writ can be issued against a private individual who has come into bona fide possession without any collusion?

iii. Whether the failure to serve notice under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, invalidates an eviction carried out by the Union of India?

iv. Whether the alternative remedy of civil suit should bar the writ remedy in such factual scenarios?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Sohan Lal argued that the writ jurisdiction was not appropriate due to disputed facts and title. A civil suit was the correct forum for such adjudication [1].

ii. They contended that the petitioner, Jagan Nath, had no legal title as no allotment letter was ever issued. Thus, his possession was not lawful [2].

iii. They argued that Sohan Lal acquired possession through valid allotment, complying with all conditions, including payment of sale price and ground rent. He was a bona fide allottee [3].

iv. They emphasized that a writ of mandamus generally does not lie against private individuals, particularly where the individual had no collusion or knowledge of illegality in the eviction [4].

v. They relied on R. v. Chester Corporation, (1855) 25 LJ.Q.B. 61, to argue that mandamus cannot oust an individual in de facto possession without a formal declaration or suit [5].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Jagan Nath submitted that he was placed in possession of the property by the Government itself, via the Accommodation Officer, and thus not a trespasser [6].

ii. They pointed out that his eviction was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, which required 15 days’ notice before eviction [7].

iii. They argued that an illegal eviction violated fundamental and statutory rights, and hence the Court should issue a writ directing restoration of possession [8].

iv. They relied on High Court rulings in Khushal Singh v. Rameshwar Dayal (ILR [1954] Punjab 211), and Mohinder Singh v. State of Pepsu (AIR 1955 Pepsu 60), which upheld writs in similar factual situations [9].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Empowers High Courts to issue writs including mandamus for enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights.
ii. Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1950 – Mandates 15 days’ notice before eviction.
iii. Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1952 – Provided authority for eviction by government in certain cases.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court ruled that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is inappropriate for adjudication of disputed title or private rights, especially where such adjudication would amount to issuing a declaratory decree and restitution [10].

ii. The Court held that no writ of mandamus can be issued against a private person, like Sohan Lal, unless collusion with the State is proven, which was absent here [11].

iii. Though the eviction was illegal due to violation of Section 3, the remedy lay in seeking a civil declaration and restitution, not a writ [12].

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court observed that writs like mandamus should be limited to public duties. It reaffirmed that private disputes on possession and title are to be resolved through civil suits, not constitutional writs [13].

ii. It emphasized that alternative remedy, where adequate and efficacious, should be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction [14].

c. GUIDELINES 

• Writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person unless collusion with public authority is proven.

• Disputed questions of fact and title bar issuance of writs.

• High Courts must be cautious in exercising writ jurisdiction when a statutory or civil remedy exists.

• Illegality by state action does not automatically lead to writ issuance if possession has changed hands bona fide.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case clarifies the judicial restraint required in Article 226 jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rightly emphasized the distinction between public and private law remedies. Even if state action is illegal, courts cannot use writs to effect private restitution unless title and possession are undisputed. This serves the dual purpose of protecting constitutional jurisdiction from being overextended and guiding litigants towards the proper legal forums for redress. It also underscores that bona fide possession, if not tainted by fraud or collusion, will be protected from direct writ orders, maintaining sanctity in property transactions post-displacement and rehabilitation efforts.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] R. v. Chester Corporation, (1855) 25 LJ.Q.B. 61
[2] Khushal Singh v. Shri Rameshwar Dayal, ILR [1954] Punjab 211
[3] Mohinder Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 Pepsu 60
[4] G. Kistareddy v. Commr. of City Police, Hyderabad, AIR 1952 Hyderabad 36
[5] Wazir Chand v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, [1955] 1 SCR 408

b. Important Statutes Referred

[6] Constitution of India, Article 226
[7] Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1950, Section 3
[8] Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1952, Section 25