Monu Vs A.D.M. (South - West) and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026)

$~82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 1647/2026 MONU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Mr. Umesh Yadav and Mr. Uday Sharma, Advocates.

versus A.D.M. (SOUTH - WEST) AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SC with Mrs. K. K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Advocates for R-2.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 05.02.2026

¶9

The Petitioner is a co-owner/co-sharer in possession of agricultural land comprised in various khatas, namely Khata No. 11/11 (129/5352 share), Khata No. 86/78 (17/900 share), Khata No. 76/67 (88/901 share) and Khata No. 55/47 min (1/27 share), situated in the revenue estate of Village Mundhela Khurd, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi.

¶10

The Petitioner intends to sell/gift his share in the aforesaid land for bona fide needs and, accordingly, moved an application dated 25^th October, 2025 before the Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer (Respondent No. 2) seeking necessary sanction under Section 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. However, no decision has been communicated thereon.

¶11

Thereafter, the Petitioner also approached Respondent No. 1 on 1^st December, 2025, but neither has any permission/NOC been granted nor has any formal order of refusal been passed. The inaction has constrained the

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 09/02/2026 at 12:57:17

¶14

Petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents submits that the land in question is situated in a village where consolidation proceedings have been pending since long, and therefore sanction under Section 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Fragmentation) Act, 1948 is required before registration of the sale/gift deed.

¶16

Insofar as the insistence on a sanction/NOC founded on the pendency of consolidation proceedings is concerned, this Court in Okaya Infocom Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.¹ , while dealing with the registration of sale deeds, held that having regard to the prolonged nature of consolidation proceedings, registration of such documents cannot be indefinitely withheld solely on the ground of non-availability of a sanction/NOC. The Sub-Registrar was directed to proceed in accordance with law, without insisting upon any sanction, approval, or NOC linked exclusively to consolidation proceedings.

¶17

The aforesaid legal position was reiterated by this Court in Jeevantika Organic Farming LLP v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.² , wherein, while taking note of the stand of the Government, this Court balanced equities by requiring the intending purchaser(s) therein to furnish an undertaking. The underlying principle, namely that registration cannot be stalled indefinitely on account of pending consolidation proceedings, is equally applicable to the present case.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid legal position, and having regard to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be

¶19

1 In W.P.(C) 12122/2021 , decided on 10th November, 2023.

¶20

2 In W .P. (C) 12083/2025 & other connected matters decided on 12th August, 2025.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 09/02/2026 at 12:57:17

¶23

disposed of by issuing directions in similar terms.

¶24

Accordingly, it is directed as under: (i) The Petitioner shall file an undertaking by way of an affidavit stating that the factum of this order shall be disclosed in the event of any further transaction relating to the subject land, prior to the conclusion of the consolidation proceedings. Let the said undertaking be filed within a period of two weeks from today. Upon filing of such an undertaking, the Petitioner shall remain bound thereby.

¶25

(ii) Any breach of the aforesaid undertaking shall entail consequences in accordance with law. The said undertaking shall also form part of the proposed Sale/Gift Deed, so as to put any subsequent transferee to notice of the subsisting undertaking.

¶26

(iii) Subject to verification of the land acquisition status by the competent authority, and in line with the decisions in Okaya Infocom Pvt. Ltd. and Jeevantika Organic Farming LLP , it is directed that the registration of the proposed Sale/Gift Deed shall not be refused solely on the ground of pendency of consolidation proceedings or non-availability of any sanction/ NOC in that regard, and shall be processed further in accordance with law. (iv) It is clarified that the registration shall be without prejudice to the pending consolidation proceedings and shall remain subject to the rights, claims, and contentions of third parties, if any.

¶27

With the following directions, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶28

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶29

FEBRUARY 5, 2026/ hc

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 09/02/2026 at 12:57:17

Monu v. A.D.M. (South - West) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu v. A.D.M. (South - West) and 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijender Singh. Vs Globe Detective Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Kumari Pratiksha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Narendra Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Ran Singh and Anr. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.

Sanjay Pahwa Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Ami Sisodiya Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Mr Markand Adhikari Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Raj Rani Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi MCD through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Prof Quddus Khan Vs Jamia Millia Islamia University

Moti Lal Meena Vs Airports Authority of India

Laxmi Tanwar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shruti Valecha Vs the Principal Disrtict and Sessions Judge and Ors.

Narender Kumar Vs A.D.M. (La) (South - West) and Ors.