Disputed challenges to registered sale deeds require civil adjudication, not cancellation in writ proceedings.

The petitioner owned Plot No. 7-P18 in Naubad Housing Area, Bidar.

In 2011, he sought allotment of an adjoining open space measuring 20 × 40 feet.

KIADB demanded ₹55,242, which the petitioner paid, and he requested a conveyance.

No allotment letter or possession certificate was issued.

In 2019, KIADB executed a registered sale deed for the open space in favour of respondent No. 4, without notifying the petitioner or refunding his payment.

The petitioner sought to quash that sale deed and compel conveyance of the land to him.

KIADB defended the sale and offered to refund the amount.

1. Whether the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 4 could be set aside in writ proceedings, given the petitioner’s payment for the adjoining open space and the disputed claims concerning that land

2. Whether the petitioner had acquired a vested right to the open space through KIADB’s demand and receipt of payment, despite the absence of a formal allotment

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to repayment of the amount paid to KIADB, with interest and costs

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, writ jurisdiction is generally not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed questions of title or to grant relief that requires a civil court to determine competing property claims; Sohan Lal v. Union of India, as discussed in Sri Althaf Ahamed v. State of Karnataka, supports that principle

A demand for, and receipt of, payment toward proposed allotment does not itself confer a vested right where no formal allotment letter or possession certificate has been issued

A registered conveyance carries a presumption of valid execution and genuineness, which must be rebutted by cogent evidence; Sarafat Ali (Deceased) through LRs v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar

A challenge to the deed may therefore be pursued in a properly constituted civil suit

Although KIADB had demanded and retained the petitioner’s payment before conveying the open space to respondent No. 4, it had not formally allotted the land to the petitioner.

The payment therefore did not establish a vested right to the property, and the boundary description in the petitioner’s existing deed could not be determined in writ proceedings.

The Court considered KIADB’s failure to communicate its decision and refund the money arbitrary, but held that setting aside the registered deed would require resolution of disputed factual and property issues, appropriately addressed in a civil suit.

Given KIADB’s prolonged retention of the payment, the Court ordered repayment with interest and costs.

It directed respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to refund ₹55,242 with interest at 18% per annum from 5 September 2011 until payment, and to pay ₹50,000 in costs, within four weeks of receiving the order.

The petitioner was granted liberty to sue for cancellation of the sale deed dated 4 April 2019 in accordance with law.