The Supreme Court has made it clear that Article 131 of the Constitution cannot be used by statutory authorities or other instrumentalities of the State to bring disputes directly before it.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu delivered the ruling while overturning an Allahabad High Court decision that had dismissed a long-pending petition filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) in connection with a land possession dispute in Lucknow.
The dispute dates back several years and involves land on which the LDA had developed a residential colony and allotted plots and flats to beneficiaries. The development authority alleged that officials of the Union government and defence establishments were interfering with the physical possession of the allottees, asserting that the land belonged to them.
The LDA had approached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court against the Union of India, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command and the Station Commander, Sub-Area, Cantonment, Lucknow.
Efforts to settle the disagreement between the authorities did not succeed. The High Court subsequently dismissed the LDA’s writ petition in September 2023, holding that the dispute could not appropriately be resolved through writ proceedings. It also left the parties free to pursue a remedy under Article 131.
The Supreme Court found that reasoning fundamentally flawed.
Article 12 ‘State’ and Article 131 ‘States’ are not the same
The Bench pointed out that the petition before the High Court had been instituted by the LDA, rather than by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The LDA is a statutory corporation created under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. While such a body may qualify as an instrumentality of the State and therefore fall within the broad meaning of “State” under Article 12, that does not automatically give it the status contemplated by Article 131.
Article 131 deals with the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in disputes involving the Union government and one or more constituent States, or disputes between two or more constituent States.
The Court stressed that the word “States” in Article 131 refers specifically to the States forming part of the Union and listed in the First Schedule to the Constitution. It cannot be expanded to cover every statutory authority or government-controlled body that happens to fall within Article 12.
Consequently, the LDA could not itself invoke Article 131 to approach the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction.
High Court’s approach found to be a serious error
The Supreme Court described the High Court’s decision to treat the matter as a dispute between the Union and a State as a serious legal error.
It also took note of the extraordinary delay involved. The LDA’s writ petition had remained pending for almost 25 years before being dismissed.
The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court’s order and sent the matter back for consideration on its merits and in accordance with law.
Given the considerable period for which the litigation has remained unresolved, the Bench requested the Allahabad High Court to take up the matter and decide it expeditiously.
