Disputed genuineness of mutation documents cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

The petitioner claimed rights in a tehbazari site allegedly allotted to Diwan Chand Arora and later transferred by Arora’s wife, Mahinder Kaur, to the petitioner.

He relied principally on a mutation letter dated 24 May 2010 and sought permission to continue trading at his present squatting site until possession of the claimed allotted site was given.

The MCD stated that the mutation file was untraceable and disputed the letter’s genuineness.

It also asserted that the transfer documents referred to a different site from the one claimed by the petitioner.

The MCD further informed the Court that it had cancelled the mutation by an order dated 27 April 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim to the tehbazari site and the genuineness of the mutation and transfer documents could be determined in a writ petition under Article 226.

2. Whether the petitioner could obtain interim permission to trade at his present squatting site pending possession of the claimed allotted site.

The Court applied the principle governing writ proceedings under Article 226 that disputed questions of fact—including the genuineness of contested documents—cannot appropriately be adjudicated in a writ petition.

The Court noted that tehbazari holders had, in similar matters, been permitted to continue trading pending allotment of an alternate site, but did not extend that approach where the petitioner’s foundational documents and entitlement were disputed.

The petitioner’s claim depended on a disputed mutation letter and transfer documents.

The MCD challenged the letter’s authenticity, questioned its issuance and signatures, and contended that the transfer documents related to a different site.

Resolving those disputes would require factual examination unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.

The Court also considered that the MCD had cancelled the mutation, further preventing it from granting the requested relief on the record before it.

It left the petitioner free to pursue any available civil remedy in accordance with law and disposed of the petition and pending application.