Dismissed¶21

Jasdeep Singh & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC18 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/14333/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against DDA demolition/speaking order dated 04.09.2025; dispute over property location — Khasra No.48/7 (Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave / Krishna Nagar, not acquired) versus Khasra No.48/5 (acquired); held a disputed question of fact unfit for summary adjudication under Article 226; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach Civil Court; four-week protection from coercive action; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the learned Civil Court; direction that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners for a period of four weeks. ¶21

Jasdeep Singh & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the learned Civil Court; direction that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners for a period of four weeks.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' properties form part of Khasra No.48/7, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi (not part of the acquisition proceedings) or of Khasra No.48/5, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi (which stood acquired). +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The controversy regarding the exact location of the petitioners' property is a disputed question of fact which can only be resolved by leading evidence and not in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned Civil Court.ratio¶21
No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners for a period of four weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶22
No opinion has been expressed on the merits; the learned Civil Court will consider the prayer for interim relief in the suit proposed to be filed by the petitioners on its own merits.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.), W.P.(C) 14333/2025, decided 18.09.2025 — Petitioners sought quashing of a DDA speaking order dated 04.09.2025 and restraint against demolition of property bearing Khasra No.48/7, village Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi. The core dispute was whether the petitioners' properties fell in Khasra No.48/7, Krishna Nagar (not acquired) or Khasra No.48/5, Krishna Nagar (acquired). The Court held the controversy to be a disputed question of fact resolvable only by leading evidence and not in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Civil Court; no coercive action was directed against the petitioners for four weeks; the Court expressly expressed no opinion on merits, leaving interim relief to be considered by the Civil Court on its own merits.

¶1

$~103

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 14333/2025, CM APPL. 58747/2025, 58748/2025 JASDEEP SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶4

Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Mr. Sugam Puri and Ms. Shivani Bardia, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent

¶7

Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA with Mr. Gautam Yadav, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 18.09.2025

¶10

The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:

¶11

“a. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction to quash and set aside the impugned speaking order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Respondent.

¶12

b. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus/and or other Writ restraining the Respondent (DDA) from unlawfully demolishing the property or taking any coercive steps for the bearing Khasra no. 48/7 stated in the village of Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi.

¶13

c. Direct the respondents to maintain status quo in the Property Bearing Khasra Number 48/7 situated in village Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.”

¶14

The controversy in the present petition is with regard to the exact location of petitioners’ property. The contention of the petitioners is that their properties form part of Khasra No.48/7 situated at Krishna Nagar, New Delhi which was not part of acquisition proceedings.

¶15

On the other hand, the DDA’s contention is that the said properties are comprised in Khasra No.48/5 situated at Krishna Nagar, New Delhi

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 20/09/2025 at 12:44:22

¶18

which stood acquired.

¶19

The controversy articulated in the present petition appears to be a disputed question of fact which can only be resolved by leading evidence and not in the summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

At this stage, Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wishes to withdraw the petition and approach the learned Civil Court. However, he urges the Court that petitioners may be protected for a period of four weeks.

¶21

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.

¶22

It is directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners for a period of four weeks from today.

¶23

It is further clarified that no opinion has been expressed by this Court on the merits of the case. The learned Civil Court will consider the prayer for interim relief in a suit proposed to be filed by the petitioners, on its own merits.

¶24

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶25

SEPTEMBER 18, 2025/dss

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 20/09/2025 at 12:44:22

Jasdeep Singh & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasdeep Singh & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sanghthan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Aman Malik Advocate Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nafeesa Begum Vs the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Mr. Anil Kumar Goel Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi 10 and Ors.

Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Prem Colour Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Sarpal Vs the High Court of Delhi

Shanti Amar Singh College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Dr Hina Kabeer Vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences

Shri Manish Kumar Singhal Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Surender Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority