Concluded property sale contracts resist writ relief; affirmation of performance bars rescission, restitution, and damages claims.

Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for disputes arising from a concluded property sale contract where performance, possession, sanctioned plans, and payment have already occurred and disputed facts predominate. The Court nevertheless examined the merits rather than dismissing on maintainability alone. On substance, alleged misrepresentation, mistake, frustration, and later reduction of FAR did not justify rescission, restitution, or damages because the change in FAR flowed from a change in law, the transaction had been affirmed through acceptance of the sale deed and performance, and the completed transfer made restoration impracticable. Ceiling-related conditions also did not alter the result.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in respect of disputes arising out of a concluded contract for sale of property and the reliefs claimed therein. (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to avoid the concluded transaction or obtain refund and damages on the grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, frustration, or the reduction of FAR and ceiling-related conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in respect of disputes arising out of a concluded contract for sale of property and the reliefs claimed therein.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a completed sale transaction involving execution of the sale deed, payment of consideration, delivery of possession, approval of plans, and commencement of construction. The Court held that such matters ordinarily involve contractual rights and obligations and are not well suited to adjudication in writ jurisdiction where disputed questions of fact predominate. At the same time, the Court declined to dismiss the appeals merely on maintainability because the matter had remained pending for long and relegating the appellants to a civil suit at that stage would not be an efficacious remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition involved questions not ordinarily amenable to writ adjudication, but the Court nevertheless proceeded to decide the controversy on merits instead of non-suiting the appellants on maintainability alone.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to avoid the concluded transaction or obtain refund and damages on the grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, frustration, or the reduction of FAR and ceiling-related conditions.

Analysis: The auction represented the property as carrying FAR 2.0 and as freehold and ceiling free, but by the time the conveyance was executed the appellants had delayed payment, paid interest for delay, furnished stamp duty, accepted the sale deed, obtained possession, got plans sanctioned with FAR 1.75, and commenced construction. The Court held that any change in FAR resulted from a change in law and not from a legally actionable misrepresentation at the time of bidding. Even assuming some misstatement in the conveyance, the appellants elected to affirm the contract and proceed under it, thereby losing the right to rescind. The doctrines of mistake and frustration were held inapplicable to a concluded conveyance, and the ceiling-related exemption conditions did not alter the result because the ceiling proceedings had abated and the State did not enforce those conditions. The Court also held that the State could not be compelled, in an individual case, to alter statutory building parameters under the cited enabling provisions.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to rescind the contract, claim restitution, or recover damages, and the reliefs claimed on the grounds urged were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The transaction remained binding despite the later regulatory changes, and the appellants were left without the declaratory and monetary reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi: A party to a concluded contract who, after knowledge of the alleged misrepresentation or changed legal position, elects to affirm the contract and proceeds with performance cannot later rescind it or claim restitution on the basis of frustration, mistake, or misrepresentation where the contract has become a completed transfer and restoration is impracticable.

---