Disposed

Sh Satish Mann v. Sh Rakesh Dass and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Sept 2025CONT.CAS(C)/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging disobedience of a prior order directing demarcation and removal of encroachments. A respondent status report showed demarcation was done but revealed record discrepancies requiring Financial Commissioner rectification, and that urbanised village status prevents further demarcation. Petition was disposed of with liberty to seek other proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sh Satish Mann Vs Sh Rakesh Dass and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 57/2024

¶4

SH SATISH MANN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Nazim Uddin Ahmed, Advocate. versus

¶6

SH RAKESH DASS AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel, Civil, GNCTD.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 10.09.2025

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present petition under Section 2/10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeks the following prayers:

¶13

“A. Direct the Respondent/Contemnor to purge their contempt, they have committed witfully by disregarding the direction of this Hon'ble Court W.P (C) No. 1700512022 title as" Sh. Satish Mann v. Lt Govt. of NCT Delhi" (Annexure -P/1)

¶14

B. Initiate the Civil as well as Criminal Contempt proceeding against the Respondent/Contemnor as disobeyed the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

¶15

C. Award costs of the present proceeding in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents/Contemnors; and

¶16

D. Pass such other or further order or orders or such direction as this Hon'b1e Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of the justice”

¶17

Vide order dated 24.05.2023 in W.P.(C) 17005/2022, the following directions were passed:

¶18

“4. Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that since TSM Surveyor for carrying out demarcation has already been appointed by the respondents, the demarcation

¶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 15/09/2025 at 11:52:38

¶21

procedure shall be carried out by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶22

After the demarcation is completed, the concerned authorities are directed to remove the encroachments as may be existing on the street/road.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent handed over in Court today a status report, the same is taken on record. In the said status report, it is stated as under:

¶24

“1. The Petitioner has stated in his petition that demarcation is not carried out by the R-2 and R-3.

¶25

It is to be noted that vide order did. 13.06.2023 BDO North had issued work order in which M/s Map Ago Infra Pvt. ltd. was directed to complete the demarcation work by TSM. (Anxr. A). 3. Vide demarcation order dtd. 20.08.2023, Tahslidar Narela had fixed the demarcation schedule on 04.07.2023 (Anxr. B). 4. Now, according to TSM surveyor in his report did. 18.03.2024, there is a difference in dimension as mentioned in field book record and dimension in masavi / sizra when measured from masavi / sizra. The matter was discussed with the concerned Patwari and it has been observed that there is a difference of about 7 gattas (5 gatta in the North side dimension of Khara no. 351 and 2 gatta in the North side dimension of khasra no. 348) that needs rectification. (Anxr. C)

¶26

Accordingly, above matter was discussed in the presence of Panchayat Secretary BDO North, Patwari concerned, Kanungo Narela, TSM surveyor. The above difference was examined on the digital map available with the TSM surveyor and the sizra map. It was found that there are certain deviations that are shown in the schematic diagram shown in Anxr. D. TSM surveyor has stated that above deviations are probably due to wrong entry in the field book by the then Revenue staff / Official to which Kanungo stated that these entries were made during the consolidation process of village Naya Bans in 1970-71. As per section 42 of the Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1918, only Hon’ble Financial Commissioner has the power to rectify such entries. (Anxr. D)

¶27

Therefore, conclusively, it can be slated that : a. The prayer by the Pelitioner that the demarcation is not done is a wrong statement. As explained above the demarcation is done

¶28

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 15/09/2025 at 11:52:38

¶29

and deviations aro explained b. The village Maya Bans is urbanise. So, vide judgments "Mohinder Singh(Doad) Versus Narain Singh And Others' and 'Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd & Anr vs GNCTD. DLR Act cease to operate in urbanised villages. So, the demarcation cannot be carried out further. The petitioner may approach other civil agencies like DDA and MCD for the redressal of their grievance.”

¶30

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if any, before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶32

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶33

SEPTEMBER 10, 2025/bsr

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 15/09/2025 at 11:52:38

Sh Satish Mann v. Sh Rakesh Dass and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sh Satish Mann v. Sh Rakesh Dass and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Kumar Vs Rinku Dagar & Ors.

Ms. Yashtee (Minor) & Anr. Vs Sh. Himanshu Gupta

Vipul Kumar Vs Shikha

M/S Gunjan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Asha Kedarnath Gupta

Mrs Harinder Sachdev Vs Dr Nikhil Sinha & Anr. & Ors.

Malkhan Vs Arun Kumar Jha & Anr.

Pancha Devi Vs Arun Kumar Jha & Anr.

Munni Lal Vs Arun Kumar Jha

Rajender Kumar Vs Rinku Dagar & Ors.

Akram Khan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms. Yashtee (Minor) & Anr. Vs Sh. Himanshu Gupta

Tehseem Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.

Dinesh Rana Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors.

Central Board of Trustee Vs United Coffee House