JUDGMENT : (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner/legal heir of the original Writ Petitioner (for short ‘the petitioner’) challenging the judgment dt. 09.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4607 of 2019. The case of the Writ Petitioner 2. The petitioner had filed the said Writ Petition seeking refund of an amount of Rs.11,11,705/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Five) with compound interest, which he had paid to respondents 2 and 3 for allotment of land in industrial area, Patratu, pursuant to proposals invited for such allotment of land and for which allotment letter had been issued on 28.06.2016 allotting to petitioner plot no.5A, measuring area of 21780 sq.ft. in the said area. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had transferred the above sum of money to the second respondent on 21.07.2016 for which a money receipt had been issued on 16.08.2016 and even thereafter he had deposited Rs.4,000/-on 15.03.2017. 4. According to the petitioner , the second respondent then issued a letter on 05.07.2017 under the heading, ‘physical possession certificate’ and took the signature of the petitioner, stating that this formality was necessary for getting allotment of land and that the petitioner had put his signature in that letter. 5. According to the petitioner, though he was made to put his signature in the said letter, actual physical possession of the land allotted to the petitioner, was not given. 6. Petitioner alleges that when he, along with officers of the second respondent, went for demarcation of the allotted plot in the Patratu industrial area on 25.08.2017 for taking of actual physical possession of the land, they were confronted by a large number of villagers with ‘lathi’ and ‘danda’, who threatened to kill all present and who alleged that the allotted land was land belonging to the said villagers. 7. Petitioner alleges that it was then that he realized why he had been compelled to sign a physical possession certificate by the respondent-authority without giving actual possession, since they were fully aware that the allotted land was a disputed one. 8. The petitioner contended that several representations had been given to the second respondent for providing possession of the land or alternatively to return the amount, which the petitioner had paid, with interest, the last of which was on 15.02.2019. 9. 8. The petitioner contended that several representations had been given to the second respondent for providing possession of the land or alternatively to return the amount, which the petitioner had paid, with interest, the last of which was on 15.02.2019. 9. Petitioner also claimed that the respondent itself admitted in letters dt. 18.05.2018, dt.19.06.2018 and dt.28.08.2018 addressed to the District Administration to provide adequate security to give possession of land to the petitioner and to the other units, but in spite of the same, possession had not been given to the petitioner. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the W.P. (C) No. 4607 of 2019 for the above reliefs and contended that since he has been diagnosed with suffering from cancer of the bladder, he will not be in a position to start any business and therefore, he should be refunded the money, which he had paid to the respondents. The stand of respondent no.s 2 and 3 11. Counter affidavit was filed by respondents 2 and 3 before the learned Single Judge admitting that the petitioner had submitted an application on 11.05.2016 for allotment of land and that on 28.06.2016, a provisional land allotment letter was issued in his favour subject to the payment of Rs.9,66,700/-towards price of the land and Rs.1,45,005/-towards service tax, totalling Rs.11,11,705/-and that the petitioner deposited the same on 21.07.2016. 12. Respondents 2 and 3 also admitted that the petitioner was allotted plot 5A, measuring 21780 sq. ft. in the Patratu industrial area, Ranchi and thereafter, the petitioner submitted even an indemnity bond on 09.12.2016. 13. It is claimed that the petitioner on 05.07.2017 was issued a physical possession certificate and on 03.08.2017 also the petitioner had written to the respondents for registration of lease deed, stating that petitioner had taken physical possession of the allotted land of plot 5A and also received a physical possession certificate dt. 05.07.2017. It is alleged that on 12.09.2017, the respondents issued a letter to the petitioner for taking steps for registration of lease deed as an allottee land. 14. It is then alleged that as per the petitioner’s letter dt. 03.08.2017, he was in physical possession of the land and he should have started construction after taking such possession, but he has not done so. 15. 14. It is then alleged that as per the petitioner’s letter dt. 03.08.2017, he was in physical possession of the land and he should have started construction after taking such possession, but he has not done so. 15. It is admitted that the petitioner wrote a letter on 06.06.2018 to the respondents for arranging to provide possession of the land and it is stated that then the respondents came to know that some anti-social elements were raising disturbances to other entrepreneurs also in construction of boundary walls, and so a letter dated 20.08.2018 was addressed by the respondents to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh to provide police force including presence of a Magistrate. 16. It is stated that the respondents had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 18.02.2019 to show cause why allotment order should not be cancelled, since he did not start industrial activity and as a counter blast, the petitioner gave a representation on 15.02.2019, contending that the respondent should either provide possession or return the amount paid with interest. 17. It is also contended that on 01.07.2019 another representation was given by the petitioner for refund of the entire amount deposited with interest. 18. It is stated that Rs.5,00,931/-was refunded to the petitioner on 20.05.2019 as per clause 22 1 (i) of Regulations comprising of 55 per cent of the allotment price in case of surrender within 3 years from the date of allotment of land, and that a sum of Rs.30,754/-was deducted towards rent, maintenance, service tax, SGST, CGST and the interest of the land rent and maintenance charge. Rejoinder of the petitioner 19. Rejoinder was filed thereto by the petitioner contending that respondents 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit had not even disclosed the actual date of delivery of actual physical possession of the land to the petitioner and also did not state who else was present at the time of such demarcation of the allotted land. 20. Petitioner contended that the physical possession certificate dt.05.07.2017 and letter dt. 03.08.2017 were obtained from the petitioner by the respondents, but the incident of 25.08.2017 clearly disclosed the obstruction of the local villagers and to cover up their conduct, respondents 2 and 3 had issued the letter dt. 12.09.2017, as they knew that the allotted land was a disputed one. 21. Petitioner contended that the letter dt. 03.08.2017 were obtained from the petitioner by the respondents, but the incident of 25.08.2017 clearly disclosed the obstruction of the local villagers and to cover up their conduct, respondents 2 and 3 had issued the letter dt. 12.09.2017, as they knew that the allotted land was a disputed one. 21. Petitioner contended that the letter dt. 28.08.2018 of the respondents itself proves that there were unsocial elements in possession of the land allotted to the petitioner and that was why physical possession was not given to the petitioner. 22. Petitioner also pointed out that if really the story set up by respondents 2 and 3 about delivery of possession is correct, for a period of 3 years or more, the respondents ought to explain why they had not initiated any action for violation of various terms of the land allotment letter dt.26.09.2019. 23. The petitioner also contended that clause 22 (1) (i) of the Regulation of the second respondent was not applicable to him, because he had not surrendered the allotted land; and on the contrary, it was a case of non-delivery of possession of the land by respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner after receiving the entire amount of lands allotment price. 24. He therefore, contended that the entire amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondent on 16.08.2016 should be refunded with interest. 25. A supplementary affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on 27.02.2020, stating that the plot in question was in the name of the third party and he also annexed certain documents regarding payment of rent receipts etc. Events after filing of the Writ Petition 26. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner expired and his legal heirs were brought on record. 27. Thereafter I.A. No. 1742 of 2021 was also filed to quash the order passed by respondents 2 and 3 on 25.09.2019 to refund only 55 per cent of the amount deposited by the petitioner as per clause 22 (1) (i) of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulations, 2016, as it was not a case of surrender of the allotted plot and a further prayer was also made to quash a demand notice demanding annual rent and maintenance charges of allotted plot vide letter dated 02.03.2021 without providing possession of the alleged plot. However, it appears that the said I.A. was dismissed as not pressed. However, it appears that the said I.A. was dismissed as not pressed. The judgment of the learned single Judge 28. The learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings and the documentary evidence filed by the respective parties dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was a serious dispute as to whether physical possession of the property was actually handed over to the petitioner or not; and such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. 29. The learned Single Judge also opined that the Court was not in a position to come to a definite conclusion, as to whether the physical possession of the property was actually handed over to the original writ petitioner or not and that it requires evidence. She therefore directed the petitioner to approach a competent court of civil jurisdiction. L.P.A. No. 479 of 2024 30. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant/legal heir of the Writ Petitioner contended that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that there is a dispute about delivery of possession is not correct since the very fact that the respondents had issued letters on 18.05.2018, 19.06.2018 and 28.08.2018 to the District Administration to provide adequate security force, so that they can provide possession of the land to the writ petitioner and to some other units, proves that actual physical possession of the land had not been given to the original writ petitioner at all. 32. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, however, supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consideration by the Court 33. We have noted the contentions of the parties. 34. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the Writ petitioner had applied for allotment of land in the Industrial area, Patratu to the second respondent, and on 28.06.2016, Plot 5A was allotted to the him for 30 years on deposit of Rs.11,11,705/-, subject to certain terms and conditions. Clause 6 of the allotment letter specifically states that on complying with certain formalities, physical possession of the allotted plot would be handed over to the representatives of the writ petitioner by officials of respondents 2 and 3. The writ petitioner admittedly paid Rs.11,11,705/- on 26.08.2016 and it was also acknowledged by the respondents in its letter dt. 26.09.2016. 35. Clause 6 of the allotment letter specifically states that on complying with certain formalities, physical possession of the allotted plot would be handed over to the representatives of the writ petitioner by officials of respondents 2 and 3. The writ petitioner admittedly paid Rs.11,11,705/- on 26.08.2016 and it was also acknowledged by the respondents in its letter dt. 26.09.2016. 35. Though the original writ petitioner was made to sign a document styled as ‘physical possession certificate’ on 05.07.2017 showing delivery of actual physical possession of the plot, it is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner had addressed a letter on 15.05.2017 specifically, stating that he had not been given physical possession of the plot in spite of making full payment of Rs.11,11,705/-on 21.07.2016; and even thereafter on 06.06.2018, the writ petitioner had demanded delivery of possession of the allotted land, so that he can erect pillars in the four corners of the allotted land. Another letter of 15.02.2019 was also written by the original writ petitioner to the same effect. 36. If the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition that they had already delivered actual physical possession of the land to the petitioner is to be accepted for the sake of argument without conceding that it is correct, then the second respondent should explain why letter dt. 28.08.2018 had been written by the said respondent to the District administration specifically mentioning that though plots have been allotted to the writ petitioner and others, but, at the time of commencement of construction, certain third parties had created obstruction and the District administration should render assistance by providing security force to ensure that actual possession of the land is given to the writ petitioner and others. 37. There is no explanation coming forth from the respondents 2 and 3 in this regard. 38. This admission in the letter dt. 28.08.2018 totally falsifies the case of respondents 2 and 3 that they had delivered physical possession of the land actually to the writ petitioner in 2016 itself and he was guilty of not starting industrial activity in the said land. It also proves that the physical possession certificate dt. 38. This admission in the letter dt. 28.08.2018 totally falsifies the case of respondents 2 and 3 that they had delivered physical possession of the land actually to the writ petitioner in 2016 itself and he was guilty of not starting industrial activity in the said land. It also proves that the physical possession certificate dt. 05.07.2017 obtained from the writ petitioner was only with regard to delivery of paper possession and it was not evidence of delivery of actual physical possession which respondents 2 and 3 were bound to give as per clause 6 of the provisional allotment letter dt. 28.06.2016 and the final allotment letter dt.26.09.2016 issued to the writ petitioner after the respondents were paid Rs.11,11,705/-. 39. There is also no explanation coming forth from the respondents as to why steps to execute registered lease deeds were not taken within three months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter as per clause 10 of the allotment order dt. 26.09.2016, if really physical possession of the land had already been given to the writ petitioner before the said date. 40. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, erred in holding that there was a disputed question of fact about delivery of possession of the land. 41. She ought to have taken note of the letter dt. 28.08.2018 written by respondents 2 and 3 to the District Administration and held that the plea taken by respondents 2 and 2 about actual physical delivery of possession to the writ petitioner is a false plea, more so, when no such date of delivery of actual physical possession was mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3. 42. The view of the learned Single Judge that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction is not correct. In Gunwant Kaur-Vs.-Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769 the Supreme Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the same view was also reiterated in Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. In Gunwant Kaur-Vs.-Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769 the Supreme Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the same view was also reiterated in Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1970) 1 SCC 582 wherein, it had held that merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court would not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body, when the questions of fact raised are elementary. In ABL International Ltd.-Vs.-Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 , the again reiterated that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of a case, the Court entertaining such a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a civil suit and that there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition, even if the same involves some disputed questions of fact. 43. This principle was also reiterated in Unitech Ltd.-Vs.-Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corpn, (2021) 16 SCC 35 . where the Supreme Court reiterated its view declared in ABL International Ltd. (4 supra) that merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. 44. In our considered opinion there are no such serious disputed questions of fact of a complex nature, which require oral evidence for determination. We are also of the view that the action of respondents 2 and 3 in the instant case is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and is violative of the constitutional mandate of Article 14 and they have not acted fairly and reasonably. So this Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case to go into and decide the question as to whether possession was delivered or not on the basis of material available on record. 45. So this Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case to go into and decide the question as to whether possession was delivered or not on the basis of material available on record. 45. In Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs.-State of Maharashtra, (2020) 19 SCC 241 , the Supreme Court had held that even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining such a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case where the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It also held that the State should act as a model litigant and should not put forth, false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. It cannot like an ordinary party try to win a case against one of its citizens by hook or by crook. Legitimate claims of the citizens cannot be defeated by raising technical pleas and acting unfairly and unjustly towards its citizens. 46. This is a classic case where a dubious, false and vexatious defence has been set up by respondents 2 and 3 to deny the just claim of the writ petitioner for refund of the amount he had paid to secure allotment of a plot, but whose actual physical possession was never delivered to him by respondents 2 and 3. 47. Therefore, the LPA is allowed; the judgment dt. 09.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4607 of 2019 is set aside; and respondents 2 and 3 are directed to refund to the appellant the entire amount of Rs.11,11,705/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Five) less the amount, which was already paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9 per cent per annum on Rs.11,11,705/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Five) from 15.03.2017 till the date of actual payment. The said payment shall be made within 8 weeks from today. Respondents 2 and 3 shall also pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to the appellant within 8 weeks from today.