Writ Jurisdiction Improper Where Allegations of Coerced Settlement Involve Disputed Questions of Fact in Contractual Disputes

The Appellants booked an apartment in the ‘NBCC Green View Apartments’ project in Gurgaon, with possession offered in 2017

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

Consequently, the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) ordered the vacation of the premises and directed Respondent No. 1 (NBCC) to refund the consideration with interest

In February 2023, NBCC issued a "2nd Buy Back Offer" as a 'One-Time Full and Final Settlement'

The Appellants, alleging financial helplessness as retired employees, executed an Acceptance-cum-Declaration Memorandum ("Memorandum") and received payment

Later, the Appellants filed a Writ Petition claiming that NBCC subsequently offered better terms (including interest and interior costs) to other allottees, thereby violating a "Uniform Settlement Policy"

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 13.01.2026, relegating the parties to civil remedies

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate a dispute arising from a settlement memorandum alleged to be executed under coercion

2. Whether the Appellants can challenge a subsequent policy shift after having executed a full and final settlement

The court primarily applied the principle that disputes arising out of private contracts and involving "disputed questions of fact"—specifically allegations of fraud or coercion—cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Relied on the doctrine that once a "Full and Final Settlement" is executed and acted upon, a party cannot resile from its terms without first establishing that the agreement was legally vitiated

The "State" under Article 12 must not act arbitrarily or discriminatorily, but such constitutional review is predicated on the validity of the underlying legal standing of the claimant

The Court reasoned that while the Appellants alleged the Memorandum was "one-sided" and signed out of "helplessness," there was no material evidence on record to prove coercion or force exerted by NBCC at the time of execution

The Appellants only raised grievances regarding discrimination after discovering that later settlees received better terms

The Court observed that the validity of the Memorandum is a threshold issue; unless the Memorandum is found to be vitiated by fraud or coercion, the Appellants have no standing to challenge the subsequent policy shifts

Since determining fraud or coercion requires the leading of evidence and detailed examination of facts, it falls squarely within the domain of a Civil Court rather than a Writ Court

It held that the Impugned Order suffered from no infirmity as the dispute was essentially a civil/contractual matter involving disputed facts

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision to reserve the Appellants’ liberty to seek alternate remedies before a competent Civil Court. No order as to costs was made