Registered allotment letters/pattas cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction under Article 226: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of registered allotment letters issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board (RHB), holding that registered documents creating rights in immovable property cannot be challenged or cancelled in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that any such challenge must be agitated before a competent Civil Court.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit of the Jodhpur Principal Seat held that questions of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence involving disputed facts are equally incapable of adjudication in writ proceedings, and that the petitioners’ allegations against a private respondent who allegedly procured a General Power of Attorney from an aged landholder by taking advantage of his ill health must be raised before the appropriate civil forum.

“It is a settled proposition of law that where rights in immovable property have been created or recognized through registered allotment letters/pattas, validity of such registered documents cannot be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Any challenge to such registered documents is required to be raised before a competent Civil Court in accordance with law,” the Court held.

The petition arose from acquisition proceedings initiated in 1988 in relation to agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 709, 710, 711, 713 and 714 of District Dungarpur, owned by Nanka alias Nanji and his Shri Mavji. An award dated July 30, 1990 was passed and the acquired land vested in the Rajasthan Housing Board for development of a residential colony. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landholders filed a reference petition, which was allowed by the competent Civil Court vide order dated Feb 27, 2008, directing payment at market rate. The RHB’s challenge to this order and its stay petition before the High Court were rejected in 2011, and the enhanced compensation remained unpaid.

The Settlement Committee of the Rajasthan Housing Board thereafter decided to allot 15% of the developed land to the landholders in lieu of monetary compensation. Accordingly, registered allotment letters/pattas in respect of approximately 19 plots were issued on Aug 25, 2022 in favour of Nanka @ Nanji.

The petitioners — grandsons of Nanka @ Nanji — contended that respondent No. 4, Naresh Chandra, had fraudulently obtained a General Power of Attorney dated Apr 12, 2017 and an agreement to sell from the aged and ailing Nanka alias Nanji in respect of land that had already been acquired and vested in the RHB. They further contended that, after the allotment letters were issued, respondent No. 4 had executed further agreements to sell, effectively transferring the allotted plots to himself, his wife, and his daughter-in-law, depriving the petitioners of their legitimate ancestral share. The petitioners were in possession of land measuring 13,217 sq. ft. in Khasra No. 713, upon which stood a kachha residential house, and they challenged a communication dated Jan 1, 2025 by which the RHB had sought police assistance from the District Collector, Dungarpur, for their dispossession.

The respondents denied the allegations, contending that the General Power of Attorney was voluntarily and duly executed; that the land was the self-acquired property of Shri Nanka @ Nanji and not ancestral; that Shri Nanka @ Nanji himself had lodged a police complaint against the petitioners; and that he had also recently executed a Gift Deed dated Nov 6, 2025 gifting 1.17 hectares to the petitioners — a benefit which they had accepted without objection. The respondents further objected that the petitioners had suppressed the pendency of another writ petition filed before this Court.

The Court dismissed Prayer 1, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable to the extent it sought quashing of the registered allotment letters. On the fraud allegations, the Court found that no material or documentary evidence had been placed on record showing any proceedings initiated by Shri Nanka @ Nanji or by the petitioners themselves challenging the alleged fraud, and that in any event such allegations, involving disputed questions of fact, could not be adjudicated under Article 226. Prayer 3, seeking quashing of the RHB’s communication for police assistance, was also dismissed; the Court found that since the acquired land had validly vested in the RHB and compensation by way of developed plots had already been granted, the Board’s action to seek removal of encroachment from its vested land was absolutely justified.

On Prayer 2 (regularization), the Court declined to issue any specific direction compelling the RHB to part with its vested land, but granted liberty to the petitioners to file a representation for regularization before the competent authority of the RHB within fifteen days, strictly limited to the extent of their existing residential construction in Khasra No. 713. The RHB was directed to decide the representation within 45 days after hearing the petitioners. Till a final decision is rendered on the representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of their residential house.

Case Title: Ashok Damor & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5152/2026
Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:26952]
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Mool Singh Panwar, Mr. D.L.R. Vyas