Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to adjudicate highly disputed questions of fact.

The Petitioner, Mohammad Rehan, sought a Writ of Mandamus to quash a demolition notice dated 13.03.2026 issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) concerning House No. D-60, Shastri Park

The Petitioner claimed title through a chain of transfers originating from a 1969 sale deed executed by one Sh. Budha

He contended that the land (Khasra No. 74/1) was never acquired, no compensation was paid, and physical possession was never taken by the DDA

Conversely, the Respondents (DDA and Land Acquisition Collector) produced Award No. 838 (1957) and Award No. 4/1969, asserting that Sh. Budha had claimed compensation for the land and that possession had been taken over in 1956

1. Whether the land in question was validly acquired by the state, thereby extinguishing the Petitioner’s claim to the property

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can adjudicate deeply contested questions of fact regarding title and acquisition

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

High Courts should refrain from resolving "hotly disputed questions of facts" in writ proceedings, as reiterated in the Supreme Court precedent Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, (2021) 20 SCC 454

the Court considered the evidentiary value of Land Acquisition Awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to determine prima facie possession and title

The Petitioner relied on Award No. 1048 (1960) to argue the land was excluded from acquisition; however, the Court found this award pertained to a different notification and was irrelevant to the property in question

the Respondents produced Award No. 838 (1957) and Award No. 4/1969, which explicitly showed that the Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Sh. Budha, had claimed compensation and that possession of Khasra No. 74/1 and 74/2 had been taken

The Court reasoned that since the Respondents provided prima facie proof of acquisition and compensation, the Petitioner’s claims created a "disputed question of fact"

the Court held that such disputes require detailed evidence and cannot be adjudicated in a summary writ proceeding

The Court held that the Respondents successfully demonstrated prima facie that the land was part of acquisition proceedings, and the resulting factual dispute regarding title and possession was not maintainable under Article 226

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly