Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts: alternative civil remedy does not automatically bar judicial review under Article 226.

Mere availability of a civil suit does not create an automatic bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even where title and factual issues are disputed. The court must first assess whether the controversy is so serious or complex that it genuinely requires a full trial before relegating the petitioner to civil court. On the record, the refusal to entertain the writ was not sustainable because the alleged vesting by the municipal body had not been properly examined. However, the open space had already been treated as reserved for community use, so the respondents were allowed to complete the remaining development work and the petitioner was left to pursue any lawful compensation claim in the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative civil remedy and the dispute involved questions of title and fact; and what relief should follow in the circumstances.

Analysis: The availability of a civil suit does not create an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even where facts are disputed, the writ court may entertain the matter if the controversy is capable of judicial resolution on the available material. Relegation to a civil court is warranted only where a serious and complex dispute of title or fact truly requires a full trial. On the record, the High Court did not adequately examine whether the alleged vesting claimed by the municipal body had any real substance before sending the petitioner to the civil court. At the same time, the open space had already been treated as reserved for community use, and the petitioner's rights were limited to holding the land in trust and not using it inconsistently with that purpose.

Conclusion: The High Court's refusal to entertain the writ petition was not sustainable. However, in view of the limited nature of the petitioner's rights and the progress already made in the development work, the respondents were permitted to complete the remaining work, and the petitioner was left to pursue any lawful claim for compensation before the appropriate forum.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction was set aside, but the developmental work was not interdicted and the petitioner was confined to such further remedies as may be available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere existence of disputed questions of fact or an alternative civil remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; the court must first assess whether the dispute is so complex that it cannot appropriately be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---