Disposed¶24

Smt. Mamta Bajaj v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mamta Bajaj v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.; W.P.(C) 2366/2026; High Court of Delhi; Jasmeet Singh, J.; order dated 19.02.2026; writ petition under Article 226; DDA lease hold to free hold conversion; conveyance deed cancellation prayer; complaint/representation dated 15.07.2025 pending; direction to Deputy Director to hear parties on 13.03.2026 at 11:30 AM and pass speaking order; petition disposed of; CM APPL. 11493/2026 exemption allowed; standing counsel Manika Tripathy for DDA.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to the concerned Deputy Director to hear the petitioner and other affected parties and peruse supporting documents on 13.03.2026 at 11:30 AM and pass a speaking order thereafter; exemption application CM APPL. 11493/2026 allowed subject to all just exceptions. ¶24

Smt. Mamta Bajaj Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 1/DDA could convert the petitioner's property from lease hold to free hold in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (allegedly fraudulently), as raised via the petitioner's prayers +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The pending representation containing the same facts is to be decided first by the competent authority.

¶22

Key takeaways

The concerned Deputy Director is directed to hear the petitioner and the other affected parties, peruse the supporting documents on 13.03.2026 at 11:30 AM, and pass a speaking order thereafter.ratio¶23
In CM APPL. 11493/2026, exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.), order dated 19.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 2366/2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1/DDA had converted her property from lease hold to free hold in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by a conveyance deed executed in favour of respondent No. 2 and father of respondents 3 and 4, and prayed either that her complaint dated 15.07.2025 be decided, or that the conveyance deed be cancelled. Finding that a representation containing the same facts had been pending undecided with the competent authority since 15.07.2025, the Court held the representation should be decided first and directed the concerned Deputy Director to hear the petitioner and other affected parties, peruse the supporting documents on 13.03.2026 at 11:30 AM and pass a speaking order thereafter. With these directions the petition was disposed of; CM APPL. 11493/2026 (exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions. No precedent was cited and the underlying allegation of fraudulent conversion was not adjudicated by the Court.

¶1

$~90

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2366/2026

¶4

SMT. MAMTA BAJAJ .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj Ms. Nandini Singhal Mr. Naman Arora, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 19.02.2026 CM APPL. 11493/2026

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application is disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 2366/2026

¶13

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

¶14

“a. Take cognizance in present matter and decide the complaint dated 15.07.2025 in a time specified manner; OR

¶15

b. Cancel the conveyance deed executed in favour of Respondents 2 and father of 3 and 4 by Respondent No. 1”

¶16

Ms. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is the owner of the property and the respondent No.1/DDA has fraudulently converted the same from lease hold to free hold in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The same could not have been done.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 09/03/2026 at 11:54:43

¶19

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶20

Ms. Tripathy, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1/DDA and refutes the aforesaid.

¶21

Ms. Singhal, learned counsel, further states that the representation of the petitioner detailing all these facts has been pending with respondent No. 1 since 15.07.2025.

¶22

Since a representation containing the same facts is pending and has not been decided by the competent authority, it would be in the fitness of things if the representation is decided first.

¶23

For the said reasons, it is directed that the concerned Deputy Director shall hear the petitioner and the other affected parties and peruse the supporting documents on 13.03.2026 at 11:30 AM and pass a speaking order thereafter.

¶24

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 19, 2026/DM

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 09/03/2026 at 11:54:43

Smt. Mamta Bajaj v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamta Bajaj v. Delhi Development Authority & 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

Essel Lucknow Raebareli Toll Roads Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

Vipul Pankaj Sanghi Vs New Delhi Bar Association & Anr.

Inderjit Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Akal Kirpa Private I.T.I Vs Directorate General of Training & Anr.

Vijai Prakash Shukla Vs UOI & Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Institute of Economic Growth & Anr.

Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Y. Nooruddin Vs Indira Gandhi National Opern University (Ignou) & Anr.

Akal Kirpa Private I.T.I Vs Directorate General of Training & Anr.

Prity Kumari Vs Insurance Ombudsman & Anr.

H K Gaur Vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) & Ors.

Gauri Kansal Minor through Father Anil Kansal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sujata Chakrabarty Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Ajay Prakash Shrivastava Vs Union of India & Ors.