The judgment emphasizes the limitations of invoking Article 226 for adjudicating disputed questions of fact and the importance of pursuing appropriate remedies, such as civil suits, for relief in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) Allow the Present Writ Petition.

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ/order/direction directing the Respondent No.4 to immediately cancel the impugned conveyance deed dated 16.09.2014 and declare it to be

null and void. (c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ/order/direction directing the Respondent No. 4 to conduct an enquiry as to the involvement of the officials of DDA in connivance with Respondent no. 5 & 6 to execute impugned conveyance deed."

2. Petitioner claims that the respondents, through illegal and fraudulent means, have made false and fabricated documents. It is claimed that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in connivance with DDA, executed a registered Conveyance Deed dated 16.09.2014 (hereinafter `the impugned deed') of the property bearing No. C-53, First Floor, New Sabji Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi 110033 (hereinafter `the disputed property') in their favour.

3. Petitioner claims that he was in possession of the disputed property for almost 35 years but has been dispossessed by Respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who are claiming to be the owners (on the basis of the impugned deed).

4. Petitioner filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for recovery of possession of the disputed property. The respondents filed a written statement and relied upon the alleged forged documents, in support of their possession over the disputed property. It is pointed out that the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., alleging forgery, which is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 4/DDA has issued the impugned deed on the basis of the alleged forged and fabricated documents. He further submits that a representation dated 28th January, 2022 has been given to the Vice Chairman of the DDA for cancellation of the Conveyance Deed dated 16.09.2014.

6. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has given Police Complaint dated 11.02.2022 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (EOW) for registration of FIR. However, no action has been taken till date.

7. As noted above, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in relation to the possession of the disputed property and the same is pending consideration before the concerned Civil Court. It is an admitted fact that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are contesting the said suit and have relied upon the alleged forged and fabricated documents in support of their case.

8. The Courts have time and again held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be invoked for the purpose of adjudication of disputed questions of facts of such nature which would require elaborate evidence to be adduced and may involve the cross-examination of witnesses. Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot annul the registered document on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The same are mixed questions of fact and law. The party always have a remedy to approach the competent Civil Court and file an appropriate suit for such relief.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others v. Sukamani Das (SMT) & Another: (1999) 7 SCC 298, held as under:

"6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required