Disposed¶34

Sunil Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC2 May 2025W.P.(C)/5823/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 5823/2025; Sunil Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.; High Court of Delhi; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan; Order dated 02.05.2025; writ petition disposed of on counsel's request for withdrawal with liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation; Article 226 of the Constitution; DDA; Gram Sabha land; demarcation proceedings; Khasra Nos. 129, 148, Village Kharkhari Rondh, Najafgarh; encroachment; easement/access-pathway claim to be established in civil proceedings; no substantive relief granted; CM APPL. 26614/2025 exemption allowed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation; no substantive relief granted. Separately, CM APPL. 26614/2025 (for exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions and stands disposed of. ¶34

Sunil Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to be only a resident of the concerned village and does not claim to be the owner of the lands in question, can obtain writ relief under Article 226 in respect of the demarcation proceedings, the Gram Sabha land encroachments, and the pathway removed by the DDA. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

If the petitioner asserts any property rights of any nature, including easement over the land in question, he would have to establish them in civil proceedings; the writ petition is not the forum for his personal property-rights grievance.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

As regards the remaining prayers, the writ petition is disposed of, learned counsel for the petitioner having sought permission to withdraw it with liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation.

¶34

Key takeaways

This Court is not called upon to comment on the maintainability or merits of any litigation that might be filed by the petitioner in future.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan, single judge), Order dated 02.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 5823/2025 — Sunil Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Petitioner, a resident (not owner) of Village Kharkhari Rondh, Najafgarh, New Delhi, prayed under Article 226 of the Constitution for: (a) immediate withdrawal/suspension of all demarcation proceedings and reports pertaining to Khasra Nos. 129, 148 and adjoining land; (b) a verified ownership certificate and status report from DDA clarifying its jurisdiction over the land; (c) declaration that demarcation proceedings initiated by Respondents No. 2 to 4 over the urbanized land are illegal, void and without jurisdiction; (d) clearance of encroachments from all khasra numbers of the Gram Sabha land; (e) an independent inquiry into alleged favouritism/collusion and reconstruction of the Main Pathway between Khasra No. 42 and Khasra No. 43 near the petitioner's residential plot (House No. 45); (f) an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining construction/demolition/irrigation over an extensive list of khasra numbers till final disposal of the suit; and (g) legal action against individuals encroaching on DDA land. The Court observed that the petitioner did not claim ownership of the lands; his only personal property-rights grievance was the removal of an access pathway by the Delhi Development Authority in September 2024, and any asserted property right, including easement, would have to be established in civil proceedings. As to the remaining prayers, learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation with the necessary averments, particulars and prayers; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of, the Court expressly declining to comment on the maintainability or merits of any future litigation. CM APPL. 26614/2025 (for exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of.

¶1

$~88

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5823/2025

¶4

SUNIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhil Rataeeya, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 02.05.2025

¶9

CM APPL. 26614/2025 ( for exemption )

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 5823/2025

¶13

The prayers in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, are as follows:-

¶14

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order commanding Respondents No. 2 to 4 to immediately withdraw and suspend all demarcation proceedings and the reports pertaining to Khasra Nos. 129, 148 and adjoining land in Village Kharkhari Rondh, Najafgarh, New Delhi;

¶15

b. Direct Respondent No. 5 (DDA) to file a verified ownership certificate and status report regarding the land in question, and clarify its jurisdiction (to whom the property belongs i.e., DDA or Revenue authority) over the said land;

¶16

c. Declare all demarcation proceedings initiated by

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) 5823/2025

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 02/07/2025 at 00:22:35

¶21

Respondents No. 2 to 4 in respect of the said urbanized land as illegal, void, and without jurisdiction ;

¶22

d. Direct the respondents to clear all the encroachment from all the khasra nos. of the Gram Sabha Land from Village Kharkhardi Rond, Najafgarh, New Delhi; as shown in site plan and used the same for the welfare of the Villagers;

¶23

e. Direct an independent inquiry into the alleged favouritism, arbitrary actions, and possible collusion among certain public officials and private encroachers and also direct the respondents to Reconstruct the Main Pathway between Khasra No. 42, specifically from the south side of the petitioner's residential plot, House No. 45, and connects to Khasra No. 43 (village common land/road) (as shown in site plan);

¶24

f. Pass ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and the villagers of village Kharkhari Rondh thereby restraining and prohibiting them, their attorneys, servants, legal heirs, executors, administrator, agents, friends, family etc. not to construct/ demolish/ irrigate or any other activity in the khasra no. 6/3/1, 6/4/1/2, 7/16, 7/17/1, 7/19/2, 7/22, 7/23, 7/25, 7/27, 7/33, 8/25, 9/12/1, 10/14, 10/17/2, 10/24/2, 11/17, 11/18/1, 11/18/2, 11/19, 11/22/2, 11/23, 11/24/1, 16/2/2, 16/12, 16/18/3, 16/19, 17/7/1, 17/8/1, 19/15/2, 19/16, 19/17/1, 19/25, 20/11, 0/21, 0/22, 0/23, 0/24, 0/25/2, 0/26, 0/26/1, 0/27/2, 0/43, 0/44, 0/45, 0/46, 0/48, 0/49, 0/50, 0/51, 0/52, 0/53/2, 0/54, 0/55, 0/56, 0/57, 0/58/2, 0/59, 0/60, 0/61, 0/62, 0/63, 0/64, 0/65, 0/66, 0/67, 0/68, 0/69, 0/70, 0/71, 0/72, 0/73, 0/74, 0/75, 0/76, 0/77, 0/78, 0/79, 0/80, 0/81, 0/82, 0/83, 0/84, 0/85, 0/86, 0/87, 0/88, 0/89, 0/90, 0/91, 0/92, 0/97, 0/103, 0/104, 0/105, 0/106, 0/107, 0/108, 0/109, 0/110, 0/115, 0/117, 0/119, 0/121, 0/123, 129/13, 129/26, 129/27, 129/28, 129/29, 129/30, 129/31, 129/32, 129/32, 129/33, 129/34, 129/35, 129/36, 129/37, 129/38, 129/46, 129/47, 129/48, 129/49, 129/50, 129/51, 129/52, 129/53, 129/54, 129/55, 129/56, 129/57, 129/58, 129/59, 129/60, 129/61, 129/62, 129/63, 129/64, 129/65, 129/66, 129/67, 129/68, 129/69, 129/70, 0/130, 0/135, 0/137, 0/138, 0/139, 0/140, 0/142, 0/147, 148/2, 148/3, 148/4, 148/5, 148/6, 148/7, 148/8, 148/9, 148/10, 148/11, 148/12, 148/13, 0/150, 0/151, 0/152, 0/153, 0/154, 0/155, 0/156, 0/157, 0/158, 0/159, 0/160, 0/161, 0/162, 0/164, 0/165, 0/168, till the final disposal of the suit;

¶25

g. Direct the Respondents to take appropriate legal action under appropriate Sections of law against individuals attempting illegal encroachment on DDA land;

¶26

h. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

¶27

The petitioner claims to be a resident of the concerned village, but

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

W.P.(C) 5823/2025

¶30

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 02/07/2025 at 00:22:35

¶31

does not claim to be the owner of the lands in question.

¶32

The only allegation with regard to any personal property rights of the petitioner being infringed, is based upon an allegation that a pathway which is used by him for access to his house was removed by the Delhi Development Authority in September 2024. In the event, the petitioner asserts any property rights of any nature, including easement over the said land, he would have to establish that in civil proceedings.

¶33

As far as the other prayers are concerned, Mr. Akhil Rataeeya, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation with the necessary averments, particulars, and prayers.

¶34

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with these observations.

¶35

Needless to say, that this Court is not called upon to comment on the maintainability or merits of any litigation that might be filed by the petitioner in future.

¶36

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶37

MAY 2, 2025 ‘pv/JM’/

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

W.P.(C) 5823/2025

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 02/07/2025 at 00:22:35

Sunil Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kmg Industrial Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs the Additional Commissioner Adjudication, Cgst

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sgt Sayan Panja

Vinosha Reality Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(3) Delhi & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Hav Mukesh Kumar

Nitin Saxena Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Mubasshir Hasan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt Rekha Rathore Vs Union of India & Ors.

Au Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Vipin Naagar and Ors. Vs Union Public Service Commission and Ors.

Sh. Jai Prakash and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Hemanshu Dua Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (Ongc) through Dgm (Hr)

Promila Anand Vs Guru Nanak Public School & Ors.

Promila Anand Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Kapil & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.