Registered Allotment Letters Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226; Disputed Questions of Fraud Require Civil Suit

The petitioners, grandsons of Shri Nanka @ Nanji, claimed ancestral rights over land in Khasra No. 713, Dungarpur. The land was acquired by the Rajasthan Housing Board (RHB) in 1988, with a final award passed in 1990

Following a settlement, RHB allotted 15% developed land (19 plots) to the landholders via registered allotment letters dated 25.08.2022

The petitioners challenged these allotments, alleging that Respondent No. 4 (Naresh Chandra) used a fraudulent Power of Attorney to usurp the land

They further sought regularization of 13,217 sq. ft. where they claim a residential house exists, and challenged a communication dated 01.01.2025 seeking police assistance for their eviction

Respondents contended the property was self-acquired by Nanka, not ancestral, and that Nanka had recently gifted other land to the petitioners

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the cancellation of registered allotment letters/pattas?

2. Whether the court can adjudicate allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and disputed questions of fact in a summary writ proceeding?

3. Whether the Rajasthan Housing Board is justified in seeking police assistance to remove encroachments from acquired land that has already vested in it?

The court applied the settled principle that rights created via registered instruments cannot be nullified under Article 226 of the Constitution; such challenges must be brought before a competent Civil Court

It also applied the doctrine that writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for resolving complex, disputed questions of fact involving fraud or undue influence

the court relied on the principle of eminent domain and statutory vesting, noting that once land is acquired and compensation is paid/allotted, the land vests absolutely in the authority (RHB), and subsequent occupation by original owners constitutes unauthorized encroachment

The court found that the acquisition was completed in 1990 and the land had legally vested in the RHB

Regarding the challenge to the 2022 allotment letters, the court reasoned that since these were registered documents creating property rights, they could not be examined or set aside in writ jurisdiction

The petitioners’ allegations of fraud against Respondent No. 4 were deemed "disputed questions of fact" requiring trial-level evidence, which the High Court cannot entertain

furthermore, the court observed that the petitioners failed to prove the land was ancestral; instead, records showed it was Nanka's self-acquired property

Consequently, the RHB was held to be within its rights to seek police assistance to clear encroachments on its own land

However, on humanitarian grounds regarding the "kachha" residential construction, the court applied the principle of administrative fairness to allow for a representation for regularization

It held that registered documents must be challenged in Civil Court

the court disposed of the prayer for regularization by granting the petitioners liberty to apply to the RHB for regularization of their specific residential construction (but not the entire 13,217 sq. ft.) within 15 days. The RHB was directed to decide this representation within 45 days and maintain status quo regarding the residential house until such decision is made

All other stay applications were disposed of