Dismissed¶20

Jaya Saigal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC22 May 2025W.P.(C)/6650/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; alternative remedy of civil suit; partition of intestate father's properties; daughter claiming equal share; exclusion by brothers/legal heirs; rental income accounting; restraint on mutation and alienation; Article 226 Constitution of India inapposite for private civil disputes; Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2019) 2 SCC 329 relied on; Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (1992) 4 SCC 61; Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal (2003) 6 SCC 230; High Court of Delhi; W.P.(C) 6650/2025; Justice Sachin Datta; decided 22.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to initiate the appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. ¶20

Jaya Saigal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to initiate the appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claims arising from civil disputes over her deceased father's intestate properties (share/partition, restraint on mutation and alienation, and accounting of rental income) can be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

Court's answer

There are civil disputes subsisting between the parties which are required to be adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings, and it is inapposite to adjudicate these disputes in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate the appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sachin Datta, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by a daughter (Jaya Saigal) whose father, Sh. Madan Lal Nagpal, died intestate on 20.11.2024 leaving several properties. She sought (i) restraint on mutation/alienation of the properties without proper partition or consent of all legal heirs, (ii) declaration of an equal share and initiation of partition proceedings, and (iii) accounting and payment of her share of rental income from leased properties from the date of her father's death, alleging exclusion by her brothers (respondent nos. 1 and 2). Holding that civil disputes subsisting between the parties must be adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings and that it is inapposite to decide them in a petition under Article 226, the Court relied on Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329 (a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of property-rights disputes between private persons; the Article 226 remedy is unavailable except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged, citing Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230). The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶1

$~112

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 6650/2025 JAYA SAIGAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Akansha, Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advs. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY& ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nitika Bhutani, Adv. for R1 and R4 to R6.

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 22.05.2025

¶5

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayers –

¶6

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents 3 to 5 to take necessary steps to prevent mutation or alienation of the aforementioned properties without proper partition or consent of all legal heirs.

¶7

b) Declare that the Petitioner is entitled to an equal share in the said properties and direct initiation of partition proceedings accordingly.

¶8

c) Direct Respondents 1 and 2 to account for the rental income from the leased properties and pay the Petitioner her rightful share from the date of her father’s death.

¶9

d) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶10

The background to the present petition is that the petitioner’s father – Sh. Madan Lal Nagpal (deceased), who passed away intestate on 20.11.2024, held title over several properties which are enumerated in the present petition as under –

¶11

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 20:45:14

¶12

Sh. Madan Lal Nagpal (deceased) is survived by his daughter (petitioner) and two sons (respondent nos. 1 and 2). The petitioner is aggrieved on account of the fact that upon the demise of her father, she has allegedly been excluded by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from claiming any right/share in the said properties and/or receiving any rental income derived from there.

¶13

The petitioner is further aggrieved by the fact that no partition or settlement has taken place as regards the said properties for division of shares between the petitioner and her brothers – respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the legal heirs of the deceased.

¶14

From the aforesaid, it is evident that there are civil disputes subsisting between the parties; the same are required to be adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings. It would be inapposite to adjudicate these disputes in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. and Others (2019) 2 SCC 329, it has been held as under –

¶15

“ 14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons . The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue

¶16

¶17

appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61] and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230] .)

¶18

15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court. ”

¶19

(emphasis supplied)

¶20

In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate the appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶21

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶22

MAY 22, 2025/uk, dn

¶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 01/07/2025 at 20:45:14

Jaya Saigal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Saigal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Ors. Vs Abhay Raj Pal

NTPC Retired Employees Welfare Association and Ors. Vs NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

Ge Steam Power Inc( Earlier Known as M/S Alstom Power Inc) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Ge Power Gmbh ( Earlier Known as M/S Ge Power Ag and Ealier to That as Alstom Power Ag) Vs Assistent Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 1(3) (1) and Anr.

M/S a.P.Apparels Vs the Labour Commissioner & Ors.

Siddhartha Kothari Vs Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation 3 & Anr.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs Vodafone Idea Limited

Sahil Arora Vs Commissioner of Excise, Entt. and Luxury Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Shubh Bhardwaj Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Agha Mohammad Jafar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Devki Nandan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India & Ors.

Deepak Kumar Chopra Vs Union of India

Deepti Devesh Vs High Court of Delhi through Registrar General