Settlement Executed Voluntarily and Acted Upon Cannot Be Challenged via Writ Jurisdiction for Alleged Coercion

The Appellant booked an apartment in the ‘NBCC Green View Apartments’ project in 2013 and received possession in 2019

In 2021, IIT Delhi declared the project structurally unfit for habitation

Consequently, the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) ordered NBCC (Respondent No. 1) to refund allottees with interest

In July 2022, NBCC issued a "Buy Back Offer" for only the principal amount, which the Appellant initially resisted

However, claiming financial distress after NBCC stopped paying rent, the Appellant executed an "Acceptance-cum-Declaration Memorandum" in February 2023, accepting a one-time full settlement of the principal amount and registration charges

Later, NBCC introduced a new policy offering other allottees the principal plus 6% interest and interior costs

The Appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking parity under this new policy, which was disposed of by a Single Judge on the grounds that the dispute was contractual and involved questions of fact

The Appellant challenged this via the present intra-court appeal.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally not the appropriate forum for resolving private contractual disputes or complex "disputed questions of fact" such as fraud or coercion

While the "State" must not act in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner under Article 14, the doctrine of promissory estoppel and claims of parity cannot be entertained in writ proceedings if they are contingent upon setting aside a previously executed bilateral settlement agreement

The Court reasoned that once the Appellant executed the Memorandum and received the settlement amount, the contract was concluded

The Appellant’s grievance—that the Respondent’s subsequent policy was more favorable—could only be addressed if the Appellant first proved that his initial settlement was vitiated by fraud or coercion

The Court observed that such allegations of coercion are factual in nature and require an evidentiary trial, which is not feasible under writ jurisdiction

The Court further noted that no evidence of coercion was presented at the time the Memorandum was signed, and the Appellant only raised objections after discovering that subsequent allottees received better terms

Since the matter is essentially a civil dispute over a contract, the Single Judge was correct in refusing to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Impugned Order suffered from no infirmity and correctly reserved the Appellant's liberty to approach a competent Civil Court for relief. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs