Daljit Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority

“a) Allow writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ inter-alia quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Court of District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court in P.P. Act appeal no. 16/2018. Any other or further order/(s) which this Hon’ble Court may kindly deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances as well as the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent/s.”

¶16

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts in PPA No. 16/2018. The aforesaid appeal was

¶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 15/04/2026 at 12:04:33

¶19

filed challenging the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by Estate Officer-II D, Delhi Development Authority against the petitioner with respect to public premise bearing no. 3-A/112, Basti Reghar, Khasra No. 2592, WEA Karol Bagh, Delhi, 110005.

¶20

Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge disposed of the said appeal in the following terms:

¶21

“6. After having examined the record of the case, contentions of both the sides, facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no interference with the order dated 30.07.2018 is called for. Since there is an admission on behalf of appellant that he is an unauthorised occupant and no rightful claim to the possession of the property in question is shown and also the assessment of damages has already been done, appellant is under obligation to vacate the premises. The Estate Officer has rightly ordered for eviction as well as damages. The charges sought by the department is as per rules and regulations.

¶22

In view of above observations, I find no illegality and impropriety in the order dated 30.07.2018. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

¶23

On 10.03.2026, when the matter was listed before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments had submitted that the latter would vacate the aforesaid subject premises within a period 6 months from that day. In view of the same, an affidavit of undertaking was sought and it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. The said undertaking has been placed on record.

¶24

In these circumstances, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed. The petitioner shall abide by the undertaking given by him and shall vacate the subject premises on or before 10.09.2026. Till then, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. In case, the petitioner does not abide by

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 15/04/2026 at 12:04:33

¶27

the said undertaking, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶28

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

¶29

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith .

¶30

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶31

APRIL 09, 2026 /bsr/ah

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 15/04/2026 at 12:04:33

Daljit Singh v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daljit Singh v. Delhi Development Authority

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

Baba Saheb Ambedkar Technical Educational Society Vs Union of India

Techniko Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs 1. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr.

Bhagwan Dass Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Narendar Pal Sachdeva Vs DDA and Anr.

Varutha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manju Bala Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Narender Singh Tyagi Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.

Mrs Chanchal Vs Mr Arvind Singh Chauhan

Sohan Singh Soni Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla

Gulshan Kumar (Deceased) through Lrs Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Ravi Shankar Vs Delhi Development Authority

Raghubir Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.