AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, before arriving at a decision that the dispute between the parties was not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there were disputed issues of fact involved, the learned Single Judge ought to have called for a counter affidavit from the respondents.
With consent of parties, on instructions from their respective clients, therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the writ petition for consideration de novo by the learned Single Judge.
List the matter before the learned Single Judge on 8 July 2026.
The respondents are permitted to file counter affidavit by way of response to the writ petition within a period of six weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereof.
The learned Single Judge would thereafter reconsider the matter. We are not expressing any observations on whether the dispute was, or was not, amenable to adjudication under Article 226. That issue is, therefore, left open and it would be open to the learned Single Judge, after pleadings are completed, to take a view one way or the other.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
We appreciate the cooperation of the DDA as well as of Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri in ensuring that the matter could come to an amenable close.