The court held that disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction if they do not require elaborate evidence, emphasizing fairness in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner/legal heir of the original Writ Petitioner (for short ‘the petitioner’) challenging the judgment dt. 09.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4607 of 2019.

The case of the Writ Petitioner

2. The petitioner had filed the said Writ Petition seeking refund of an amount of Rs.11,11,705/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Five) with compound interest, which he had paid to respondents 2 and 3 for allotment of land in industrial area, Patratu, pursuant to proposals invited for such allotment of land and for which allotment letter had been issued on 28.06.2016 allotting to petitioner plot no.5A, measuring area of 21780 sq.ft. in the said area.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had transferred the above sum of money to the second respondent on 21.07.2016 for which a money receipt had been issued on 16.08.2016 and even thereafter he had deposited Rs.4,000/-on 15.03.2017.

4. According to the petitioner , the second respondent then issued a letter on 05.07.2017 under the heading, ‘physical possession certificate’ and took the signature of the petitioner, stating that this formality was necessary for getting allotment of land and that the petitioner had put his signature in that letter.

5. According to the petitioner, though he was made to put his signature in the said letter, actual physical possession of the land allotted to the petitioner, was not given.

6. Petitioner alleges that when he, along with officers of the second respondent, went for demarcation of the allotted plot in the Patratu industrial area on 25.08.2017 for taking of actual physical possession of the land, they were confronted by a large number of villagers with ‘lathi’ and ‘danda’, who threatened to kill all present and who alleged that the allotted land was land belonging to the said villagers.

7. Petitioner alleges that it was then that he realized why he had been compelled to sign a physical possession certificate by the respondent-authority without giving actual possession, since they were fully aware that the allotted land was a disputed one.

8. The petitioner contended that several representations had been given to the second respondent for providing possession of the land or alternatively to return the amount, which the petitioner had paid, with interest, the last of which was on 15.02.2019.

9. Petitioner also claimed that the respondent itself admitted in letters dt. 18.05.2018, dt.19.06.2018 and dt.28.08.2018 addressed to the District Administration to provide adequate security to give possession of land to the petitioner and to the other units, but in spite of the same, possession had not been given to the petitioner.

10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the W.P. (C) No. 4607 of 2019 for the above reliefs and contended that since he has been diagnosed with suffering from cancer of the bladder, he will not be in a position to start any business and therefore, he should be refunded the money, which he had paid to the respondents.

The stand of respondent no.s 2 and 3

11. Counter affidavit was filed by respondents 2 and 3 before the learned Single Judge admitting that the petitioner had submitted an application on 11.05.2016 for allotment of land and that on 28.06.2016, a provisional land allotment letter was issued in his favour subject to the payment of Rs.9,66,700/-towards price of the land and Rs.1,45,005/-towards service tax, totalling Rs.11,11,705/-and that the petitioner deposited the same on 21.07.2016.

12. Respondents 2 and 3 also admitted that the petitioner was allotted plot 5A, measuring 21780 sq. ft. in the Patratu industrial area, Ranchi and thereafter, the petitioner submitted even an indemnity bond on 09.12.2016.

13. It is claimed that the petitioner on 05.07.2017 was issued a physical possession certificate and on 03.08.2017 also the petitioner had written to the respondents for registration of lease deed, stating that pe