1. Petitioner claims rights over a tehbazari site based on a disputed mutation letter, challenging MCD's refusal to recognize the transfer. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Rajeev Chhabra – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 16049/2023 | CM APPL. 64549/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. M. Kashyap
For the Respondents: Shilpa Ohri, Rajeev Nayan, Naved Alam, Anubhav Gupta, Rashi Aggarwal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. M. Kashyap
For the Respondents: Shilpa Ohri, Rajeev Nayan, Naved Alam, Anubhav Gupta, Rashi Aggarwal
A writ petition is not maintainable for deciding disputed questions of fact or the genuineness of documents; such matters must be adjudicated through appropriate civil remedies.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Genuineness of documents - Where the primary claim of the petitioner is based on a mutation letter and supporting documents which are disputed by the respondent as being forged or incorrect, such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. (Para 19, 21)
(B) Civil Remedy - Availability - When a writ petition cannot be maintained due to factual disputes, the aggrieved party is free to pursue appropriate civil remedies in accordance with the law. (Para 23)
Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for possession and trade rights based on disputed mutation documents could be adjudicated within the scope of a writ petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. MCD argues the mutation letter appears forged and no valid sale documents support the petitioner's claim over the site. (Para 10 , 15 , 16 )
3. Disputed questions of fact regarding genuineness of the mutation letter and sale documents cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Writ petition is not maintainable when core facts, such as document genuineness, are seriously disputed and require civil trial. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 )
5. Petition disposed of as disputed facts cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction; petitioner may avail civil remedy. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. Can a writ petition be maintained when there are disputed questions of fact regarding document genuineness?
No, disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of documents cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 )
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:
“a. To allow the petitioner to carry on trade at her present squatting site Chief Silk Store, Hardhyan Singh Road, Corner, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 till the possession of allotted site at 10/30 wall of Police Station Karol Bagh Delhi given to the petitioner.
b. To the petitioner should be given possession of his allotted site at 10 / 30 wall of Police Station Karol Bagh Delhi with immigrate effect.”
3. The brief background of the present case is that, the Petitioner claims that, an open tehbazari site, measuring 6’ x 4’, No.66(old) New No.11, category ‘A’, situated at Azmal Khan Market, Opposite Bhasin Crockery, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 (hereinafter, ‘the subject site’) was allotted to one Mr. Diwan Chand Arora.
4. Mr. Diwan Chand Arora, is stated to have passed away on 22nd September, 1994. His wife, Mrs. Mahinder Kaur had obtained No-Objection Certificates from the other legal heirs, and had applied for the mutation of the subject site in her name.
5. Thereafter, Sale Purchase/Power of attorney documents are stated to have been executed on 30th October, 2000, by Mrs. Mahinder Kaur. The Tehbazari site is alleged to have been transferred in favour of Shri Rajeev Chhabra, the Petitioner herein.
6. The Petitioner’s case is that in order to obtain the mutation of the subject site in his favour, the Petitioner has repeatedly approached the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’). However, the MCD has not acceded to his request. Hence, the present petition.
7. The prayer of the Petitioner is that he be permitted to carry on trade at the present squatting site opposite Cheap Silk Store, Hardyal Singh Road Corner, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (hereinafter, ‘present squatting site’).
8. Further, the Petitioner also seeks that he should be given possession of the subject site.
9. The stand of the Petitioner is that the mutation of the subject site was approved in his favour vide mutation letter dated 24th May, 2010 bearing No. 446/AO/KBZ/2010, issued by the MCD (hereinafter, ‘the mutation letter’). Pursuant to the mutation letter, the MCD had also accepted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as fee for the same.
10. On the other hand, the stand of the MCD is that, as per the available records of the MCD, Mr. Diwan Chand Arora was the allottee of the subject site.
11. As per the status report dated 31st July, 2026, on behalf of the MCD, it is stated that, as per the available records, neither the details of the mutation nor the mutation file in favour of the Petitioner is available.
12. The claim of the Petitioner is that vide the mutation letter, the mutation was approved. However, as per the status report dated 31st July, 2026, the MCD has contended that the said letter is not traceable and is not available in the records.
13. In fact, letters exchanged between the MCD and its own department, dated 7th June, 2024 and 4th July, 2024, are annexed with the status report, as per which it is stated that the mutation letter is not traceable. The letter dated 7th June, 2024 is set out below:
14. The relevant portion of the status report on behalf of the MCD insofar as the mutation letter is concerned is as under:
“…5. That in order to examine the claim of the petitioner the relevant file in respect of mutation was saughthoweverthesameisnottraceableassuchaletter vide no.7452/AC/KBZ/2024dated 07.06.2024 had been issued to the concerned LI/KBZ (at the time of alleged mutation) to handover relevant mutation file. However, he has informed that the mentioned file is not in his custody as the same had been given to the concerned RC/KBZ for issuing final mutation receipt and entry in the D&C Register. The copy of the letter dated 07.06.2024 and reply of concerned LI/KBZare annexed herewith as Annexure-A (colly).
6. That a letter vide no. 7641/AC/K
