Disposed¶21

Guru Prasad v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3217/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PM-UDAY Scheme; Authorisation Slip; Conveyance Deed execution and registration; Delhi Development Authority (R-1); writ under Article 226 Constitution of India; petition treated as representation; personal hearing; speaking order within 3 months; property C-121/1 Lakhi Ram Park Kirari Suleman Nagar; petitioner Guru Prasad; disposed of 13.03.2026 by Jasmeet Singh, J; Delhi High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition treated as a representation; Respondent No. 1 to accord a personal hearing to the petitioner/his representative and pass a speaking order expeditiously, not later than 3 months from 13.03.2026. Costs prayed for were not addressed. ¶21

Guru Prasad Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents must permit, process and complete the execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed/Authorisation Slip for property No. C-121/1, Lakhi Ram Park, Kirari Suleman Nagar, North-West Delhi (233.33 sq. yards/195 sq. meters) in favour of the Petitioner under the PM-UDAY Scheme, accepting documents recognised at the time the Authorisation Slip was issued.

¶11

Court's answer

With consent of parties, the present petition will be treated as a representation before Respondent No. 1, and Respondent No. 1 will accord a personal hearing to the petitioner / his representative.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

After hearing the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 shall pass a speaking order expeditiously and not later than 3 months from the date of this order.

¶20

Key takeaways

On these directions the petition itself stands disposed of; no substantive adjudication of the PM-UDAY entitlement/registration issue was made by this Court.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 3217/2026 & CM APPL. 15474/2026 (order dated 13.03.2026, Jasmeet Singh, J): Guru Prasad, invoking Article 226, sought mandamus directing the Delhi Development Authority to execute and register a Conveyance Deed/Authorisation Slip for property No. C-121/1, Lakhi Ram Park, Kirari Suleman Nagar, North-West Delhi (233.33 sq. yards/195 sq. meters) under the PM-UDAY Scheme, relying on an earlier entitlement declaration and a Scheduled Caste Commission recommendation. Petitioner's counsel stated satisfaction if the petition were dealt with as a representation. With parties' consent, the Court directed that the petition be treated as a representation before Respondent No. 1, who shall accord a personal hearing and pass a speaking order expeditiously and not later than 3 months. Petition disposed of accordingly; the Court made no finding on the substantive PM-UDAY registration claim.

¶1

$~92

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3217/2026 & CM APPL. 15474/2026

¶4

GURU PRASAD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC with Ms. Antara Mishra, Mr. Aryma Sharma, Advs. for R-1

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 13.03.2026

¶10

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

¶11

“a. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit, process, and complete the execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed/Authorisation Slip in respect of property bearing No. C-121/1, Lakhi Ram Park, Kirari Suleman Nagar, North-West Delhi – 110086 admeasuring 233.33 sq. yards/195 sq. meters in favour of the Petitioner under the PM-UDAY Scheme; b. Direct the Respondents to accept the existing documents already recognised at the time of issuance of the Authorisation Slip and to facilitate registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar within a timebound period to be fixed by this

¶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 19/03/2026 at 13:37:35

¶14

Hon’ble Court;

¶15

c. Declare that the right of the Petitioner to obtain registered title pursuant to the Authorisation Slip already issued cannot be defeated by subsequent procedural requirements or administrative delay;

¶16

d. Award costs of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner; and…”

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to plot under the PM-Uday Scheme and has already been declared entitled. Additionally, the Scheduled Caste Commission has recommended the case of the petitioner.

¶18

Ms. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the petition is treated as a representation and decided by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with their extant rules.

¶19

With consent of parties, it is directed that the present petition will be treated as a representation by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 will accord a personal hearing to the petitioner / his representative.

¶20

After hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 shall pass a speaking order expeditiously and not later than 3 months from today.

¶21

The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶22

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶23

MARCH 13, 2026/sp

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 19/03/2026 at 13:37:35

Guru Prasad v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru Prasad v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

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

Ilmas Naqvi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raghubir Singh Vs Gnctd & Anr.

Pawan Bhimsaria Vs Cpio Union Bank of India Mumbai

Antique Marbonite Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Ors.

Celine Mathew Vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Om Prakash and Anr. Vs Tyhe Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Air Force Educational and Cultural Society Vs Sh. Ramesh N. Gandhi

Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Atma Ram Dogra & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Chinsurah Abacus Educational Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Om Upadhyay & Ors. Vs Joint Admission Committee Delhi & Ors.

Muntazima Committee Vs Delhi Development Authority

Obinna Theodore Onyeneto Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office & Anr.