Dismissed

Pinki Balhara & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/14045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging a Delhi government notice declaring Khasra No. 134, Village Neb Sarai as reserved forest land and directing removal of occupants. Two petitions were withdrawn with liberty to pursue alternative remedies regarding reconnection of utilities at Khasra No. 135; others dismissed as infructuous after partial demolition or for non-prosecution.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pinki Balhara & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~18 to 23

¶2

*	IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+	W.P.(C) 14036/2023 & CM APPL. 55449/2023 RADHEY SHYAM .....Petitioner
	versus
	STATE GNCTD & ORS. .....Respondent
+	W.P.(C) 14037/2023, CM APPL. 55452/2023, 43683/2024, 43684/2024 & 57818/2024
	SAURAV PRAKASH .....Petitioner
	versus
	STATE OF GNCTD & ORS. .....Respondent
+	W.P.(C) 14038/2023 & CM APPL. 55453/2023 SANJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner
	versus
	STATE GNCTD & ORS. .....Respondent
+	W.P.(C) 14039/2023 & CM APPL. 55455/2023 SHYAM BALHARA .....Petitioner
	versus
	STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent
+	W.P.(C) 14041/2023, CM APPL. 55460/2023, 43682/2024 & 57786/2024
	BAL KISHAN SAINI .....Petitioner

¶3

W.P.(C) 14036/2023 and connected matters Page 1 of 4

¶4

This is a digitally signed order.

¶5

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 12:17:19

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent + W.P.(C) 14045/2023 and CM APPL. 55466/2023

¶8

PINKI BALHARA & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

Mr. Krishna Ballabh Thakur, Advocate for petitioners in Item No.18 to 22.

¶13

Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocate for R-5. Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, SC for DJB.

¶14

Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdev, and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocates for R-1 to 3.

¶15

Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, SC for MCD with Mr. Siddhartha Goswami and Ms. Geetanjali Reddy, Advocates.

¶16

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocates for GNCTD in Item No.23.

¶17

Ms. Rachita Garg & Mr. Agam Rajput, Advocates for GNCTD in Item No. 19 and 22.

¶18

Ms. Jagrati Singh, SC for MCD with Mr. Rajpal and Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocates in Item No.19 and 22.

¶19

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶20

O R D E R % 04.07.2025

¶21

The principal challenge in these writ petitions is to a notice issued by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi

¶22

W.P.(C) 14036/2023 and connected matters Page 2 of 4

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 12:17:19

¶25

[“GNCTD”] on 16.10.2023, wherein it was contended that Khasra No. 134, Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi, has been notified as “ Reserved Forest Land as per Notification in 1994 and 1996” , and the occupants were directed to remove encroachments.

¶26

While issuing notice in these petitions on 20.10.2023, interim relief was declined, noticing the petitioners’ admitted position that the colony was unauthorised, and that they were unable to demonstrate any entitlement to occupation of the subject land. It remains the admitted position that the land in question vested in the Gaon Sabha , and was subject to orders of the Supreme Court dated 25.01.1996 and 13.03.1996 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 4677/1985]. The Court, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the occupation by the petitioners was in the teeth of the directions of the Supreme Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners (except in W.P.(C) No. 14045/2023) submits that, during the pendency of the writ petitions, their premises were partially demolished.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents state that the petitions have been rendered infructuous, as the premises in question have already been demolished.

¶29

W.P.(C) 14037/2023 & W.P.(C) 14041/2023

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in these two petitions were, in fact, in possession of the premises in Khasra. No. 135 , which, in any event, was not within the scope of the impugned notice dated 16.10.2023. He submits that the petitioners’ electricity and water connections were disconnected. The only relief now sought is for reconnection of electricity and water, as, according to the petitioners, the

¶31

W.P.(C) 14036/2023 and connected matters Page 3 of 4

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 12:17:19

¶34

impugned notice dated 16.10.2023 was not applicable to Khasra No. 135 at all.

¶35

In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw these writ petitions, with liberty to take alternative remedies, if aggrieved by any action taken by the statutory authorities.

¶36

The petitions, alongwith the pending applications, are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.

¶37

W.P.(C) 14036/2023, W.P.(C) 14038/2023 & W.P.(C) 14039/2023

¶38

Mr. Krishna Ballabh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that, as the premises of the petitioners have been partially demolished, and these petitions have been rendered infructuous.

¶39

The petitions are dismissed as infructuous.

¶40

All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶41

W.P.(C) 14045/2023

¶42

There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners, even on the second call. In fact, no appearance has been recorded on behalf of the present petitioners in the last four orders of this Court. The petitioners were represented only on the very first date of hearing, i.e., 20.10.2023.

¶43

In these circumstances, the writ petition, alongwith the pending application, is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶44

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶45

JULY 4, 2025 UK/SS/JM/

¶46

W.P.(C) 14036/2023 and connected matters Page 4 of 4

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 12:17:19

Pinki Balhara & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pinki Balhara & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Sai Ram Catering Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Rahul Shrotriya

Aruna Kumar Vs Atmaram Sanatan Dharma College & Ors.

Raj Pal Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Coursera, Inc. Vs Income-Tax Officer Circle Int Tax 1(2)(1), Delhi & Ors.

Bhupender Kumar Vs Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.

Aman Preet Singh Gandhi Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Aruna Kumar Vs Atmaram Sanatan Dharma College & Ors.

Honorary Subedar Major Bir Singh Retd Vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Pccf & Anr.

Parmod Yadav Vs Satyawati College (Evening) & Anr.

Sh.Dhruv Gaur & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mr. Opinder Nath Awasthi Vs Darbari Lal Dav Model School & Ors.

M/S Balaji Fitness Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Revenue Assistant Kanjhawala & Anr.