Serious disputed questions of fact in private disputes warrant dismissal of Article 226 writ petitions.

The District Industries Centre, Durg allotted Plot No. 34, admeasuring one acre, in favour of respondent No. 3, H.S. Mishra, and Rajkishore Mishra, husband of petitioner No. 1, on 27 October 1995. Rajkishore Mishra died on 27 April 2021. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 applied to the District Industries Centre for substitution of her name as his legal heir, but alleged that no action was taken on her applications dated 28 May 2021 and 21 June 2021.

The petitioners alleged that, on the basis of forged relinquishment deeds and affidavits submitted by H.S. Mishra, the leasehold rights were transferred in favour of M/s Shiv Engineering and Casting Pvt. Ltd. They challenged the permission letter dated 25 March 2022 and the amended lease deed dated 27 April 2022, claiming that they had never relinquished their rights and that the transfer was effected despite their pending applications and objections.

The State and the private respondents maintained that the transfer was made after verification of the relevant documents and affidavits. They further contended that the writ petition involved serious disputed questions of fact, including allegations of forgery and entitlement to possession, and that the petitioners should pursue an appropriate civil or other statutory remedy.

1. Whether the High Court should adjudicate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the allegations of forgery, relinquishment, succession, transfer of leasehold rights, and possession raised by the petitioners?

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to have the permission letter dated 25 March 2022 and amended lease deed dated 27 April 2022 quashed, and to obtain substitution of their names in the lease deed through writ proceedings?

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of fact do not automatically oust the jurisdiction of a writ court under Article 226, but the High Court may decline to adjudicate such disputes where they are complex, require evaluation of evidence or oral testimony, or are more appropriately determined by a competent forum.

Relying on A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447, State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei , AIR 1967 SC 1269, Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality , (1969) 3 SCC 769, and State of U.P. v. Ehsan , 2023 INSC 906, the Court held that the existence of disputed facts is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but a serious factual dispute supported by insufficient or inconclusive material may justify relegating the parties to a civil suit or other appropriate remedy.

The Court noted that the reliefs sought required determination of whether the relinquishment deed and affidavits were forged, whether the petitioners possessed a legally enforceable interest in the lease, whether the transfer in favour of the private respondents was valid, and who was entitled to possession.

These matters involved a dispute essentially between private parties and could not appropriately be resolved on the basis of the material available in the writ proceedings. Although Article 226 permits the High Court to determine questions of fact in appropriate cases, the Court exercised its discretion against doing so because the allegations required a detailed factual and evidentiary inquiry.

Consequently, the Court declined to examine the validity of the disputed documents or the transfer on merits and directed the petitioners to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent authority or forum.

The Court did not decide the genuineness of the alleged relinquishment deeds or affidavits, the validity of the transfer, or the petitioners’ entitlement to substitution. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the concerned authority or any other appropriate forum by filing an appropriate application or petition, which was directed to be considered and decided in accordance with law.