Disposed¶17

Bhagwan Singh & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/5094/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lado Sarai Village; Chaudhary Himmat Singh Marg blocked by construction debris; ingress and egress; Sri Aurobindo College land allotment; College not impleaded; Article 226 writ petition; liberty to make representation to respondent authorities and SHO; representations to DDA, Lt. Governor and CM dated 02.04.2025 and 07.04.2025; no adjudication of merits; Delhi High Court; Justice Prateek Jalan; 22.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent authorities or the concerned SHO if they seek specific directions regarding ingress or egress from their properties or suffer any other inconvenience; the Court made no comment on the merits, leaving consideration and redressal to the authorities. The writ petition alongwith the pending application stands disposed of. ¶17

Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the blocking, by construction debris, of Chaudhary Himmat Singh Marg — the road used by the petitioners for ingress and egress to Lado Sarai Village — warranted restoration of access / judicial directions. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The Court stated it was at a loss to understand how the relief sought in the writ petition for restoration of access to the road and the direction against the allotment of land to the College were related to each other.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

With the relief limited by counsel, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that, if the petitioners seek any specific directions with regard to ingress or egress from their properties, or suffer any other inconvenience, they may make a representation to the respondent authorities or to the concerned Station House Officer [SHO].

¶16

Key takeaways

The Court expressly made no comment upon the merits of any such representation; it is for the authorities to consider the petitioners' request and provide appropriate redressal, keeping all relevant factors in mind.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Prateek Jalan, J.), order dated 22.04.2025 in W.P.(C) 5094/2025 & CM APPL. 23325/2025: Petitioners claiming to be residents of Lado Sarai Village — without placing documents on record — filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution aggrieved by (i) the allotment of nearby land for construction of Sri Aurobindo College (which was not impleaded) and (ii) the blocking, by construction debris, of Chaudhary Himmat Singh Marg used for their ingress and egress. Counsel limited the relief to a liberty to make representations to the respondent authorities and the concerned SHO. The Court disposed of the writ petition and pending application with a direction permitting such representations regarding ingress/egress or other inconvenience, expressly making no comment on the merits and leaving consideration and redressal to the authorities.

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5094/2025 & CM APPL. 23325/2025 ( ad-interim ex-parte order ) BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. M.N. Siddiqui, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm & Ms. Kavya Shukla, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 22.04.2025

¶9

The petitioners claim to be residents of Lado Sarai Village, New Delhi. Although no documents in support of this contention have been placed on record, they have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that they are aggrieved by the allotment of a portion of land in the vicinity for construction of Sri Aurobindo College. It may be noted that Sri Aurobindo College has not been impleaded as a party in the writ petition.

¶10

In any event, the petitioners’ contention is that a road which is used by them for ingress and egress to the village, namely Chaudhary Himmat Singh Marg, has been blocked by construction debris. In the course of argument, Mr. M.N. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that construction of College has not, in fact, commenced, and construction material is being placed on said road from other construction sites. If that is so, I am at a loss to understand how the relief sought in this

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

W.P.(C) 5094/2025

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. 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 01/07/2025 at 21:09:49

¶14

writ petition for restoration of access to the said road, and the direction against the allotment of land to the College are related to each other.

¶15

Be that as it may, Mr. Siddiqui, limits the relief sought in this writ petition, to a liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the concerned authorities of the respondents, and to the concerned Station House Officer [“SHO”], for a method of ingress and egress from their property to be provided. It may be noted that in the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that an alternative road has been provided, but is inadequate. They have also made representations to the Delhi Development Authority, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, and the Chief Minister, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, on 02.04.2025 and 07.04.2025.

¶16

As the petitioners have limited their relief in the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that, if the petitioners seek any specific directions with regard to ingress or egress from their properties, or if any other inconvenience is caused to them, they may make a representation to the respondent authorities or to the concerned SHO. This Court has not made any comment upon the merits of such a representation. It is for the authorities to consider the petitioners’ request as also provide appropriate redressal of the same, keeping all relevant factors in mind.

¶17

The writ petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of.

¶18

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶19

APRIL 22, 2025/ ‘pv/JM’/

¶20

Page 2 of 2

¶21

W.P.(C) 5094/2025

¶22

Bhagwan Singh & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Singh & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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

Gsr Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Services Tax Officer Ward 103 Delhi & Ors.

Puran Store through Its Partner Hari Ram Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43 - 1 & Ors.

Mamta Goyal Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Shri Atul Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anand Tyagi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mohammed Afzal (Trade Name) Indian Enterprises Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato and Anr.

Carol Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Dayanand Bainda Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 28 (5), Delhi

Jay Bajarang Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Virender Kumar Shastri Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Sunil Kumar Vs Public Works Department

Gyan Prakash Dev Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

Shanta Talwar Vs Guru Harkrishan Public School and Ors.

Lalit Kumar & Ors. Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.