Registered Allotments Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court clarified that the validity of registered allotment letters and pattas cannot be scrutinized in writ jurisdiction, directing the parties to seek remedies before a competent civil court for such disputes. The court emphasized that while it cannot compel a statutory body to part with its vested land, it granted limited liberty for the regularization of long-standing residential constructions.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit, sitting as a single judge bench, adjudicated upon a writ petition involving a complex dispute over land acquired by the Rajasthan Housing Board in 1988. The petitioners had challenged the allotment of plots to third parties and sought regularization of land they claimed to be in their possession.

Court's Rationale on Registered Documents and Writ Jurisdiction

The Court observed that since the allotment letters and pattas in question were registered documents, they carried a legal weight that could not be set aside in a summary proceeding under Constitution of India. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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."

Regarding the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation leveled against the respondents, the bench noted that such claims involved disputed questions of fact which are not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. The court also highlighted that the land had already vested in the Rajasthan Housing Board following acquisition proceedings concluded in 1990.

Directions Issued for Regularization Request

While refusing to quash the official communications for removal of encroachments, the Court took a balanced view regarding the petitioners' residential house. The Court has the following directions:

"The Rajasthan Housing Board is directed that, in the event the petitioners submit any representation for regularization of existing residential house, the same shall be considered in an objective manner and in accordance with law. Appropriate orders on such representation shall be passed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt thereof, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Till such time as a final decision on the petitioners’ representation is taken, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of their residential house. It is made clear that the interim protection granted by this Court shall remain in force only till the petitioners’ representation is finally decided by the competent authority."

Background:

The dispute originated from the acquisition of ancestral agricultural land in Dungarpur for a residential colony by the Rajasthan Housing Board in 1988. Although an award was passed in 1990 and later enhanced by a Civil Court in 2008, the petitioners alleged that respondent No. 4 had committed fraud by obtaining a Power of Attorney and Gift Deed from their grandfather, Shri Nanka, during his ill health.

They contended that 13,217 sq. ft. of land, which included their residential house, was being unlawfully transferred to others via the Housing Board's settlement scheme. Conversely, the respondents argued that the land was not ancestral but self-acquired by the grandfather, who had even filed a police complaint against the petitioners. They further raised a preliminary objection that registered allotments cannot be cancelled through a writ. The High Court ultimately dismissed the prayers for quashing the allotments but provided a window for the petitioners to seek the regularization of their specific residential footprint.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5152/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:RJ-JD:26952
Case Title: Ashok Damor & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mool Singh Panwar, Mr. D.L.R. Vyas.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 58