Disputed title and legality of construction involving factual evidence cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.

The appellant challenged an order dated 06.12.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition

The appellant alleged that the Municipal Corporation wrongly targeted his property based on notices issued to another individual, Prateek Jaiswal, due to a name similarity

On 23.05.2023, the respondents demolished the front portion of the appellant's house despite his submission of ownership documents and a sanctioned plan

The respondents contended that the construction violated the sanctioned plan, particularly within the non-compoundable Front Margin Open Space (MOS), and that the owner failed to produce documents during the initial inspection

The Single Judge relegated the appellant to a civil court, citing disputed questions of fact

1. Whether the writ court can adjudicate disputes involving complex questions of fact regarding ownership and legality of construction under Article 226

2. Whether the demolition was vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically the issuance of notice to a third party (Prateek Jaiswal)

Sections 307(2) and 307(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which empower authorities to remove unauthorized constructions

The settled principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum for resolving disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence

Procedural irregularities do not warrant interference if no prejudice is caused to the party, especially when unauthorized construction is prima facie established

The Division Bench found that the dispute centered on whether the demolished portion fell within the non-compoundable Front MOS and the validity of the appellant's title and building plan

The court observed that while the notice was nominally addressed to Prateek Jaiswal (the son of the former owner), the appellant (the son-in-law and current owner) had actual knowledge and submitted a reply, thus negating the claim of a breach of natural justice

Upon reviewing the sale deed, the court noted that the appellant purchased the property with existing construction (approx. 200 sq. ft.) already in excess of the sanctioned area

The court reasoned that the legality of the construction and the quantum of any alleged damages are matters of evidence that must be proved in a civil suit rather than a writ proceeding

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order, as no prejudice was caused by the name error in the notice and the appellant's liberty to seek damages through a civil court remains intact