Dismissed¶13

Geeta Pathak v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4519/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Geeta Pathak v Govt of NCT of Delhi — writ petition Article 226 — quash DDA demolition notice F.01(0-2)/2526/DD/BDP/SE/DDA/503 dated 24.03.2026 — Special Provision Act 2011 Section 3 protection excluded by Section 4 / Section 4(a) — encroachment on public land — bio-diversity park public project — GPA rights not inheritable — will dated 28.04.2026 of no consequence — Village Maidangarhi, Sainik Farms, Khasra Nos. 581 and 583 — petitioner has no rights, title or interest — petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The protection sought to be invoked by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Special Provision Act, 2011 is clearly unavailable in the facts of the present case by virtue of the express exclusion carved out under Section 4 of the said Act. ¶8

Geeta Pathak Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of Section 3 of the Special Provision Act, 2011 against the demolition notice issued by Respondent No. 4, notwithstanding the exclusion carved out under Section 4 of the Act. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

On a plain reading of Section 4(a), no relief under Section 3 can be granted in cases of encroachment on public land, except in limited circumstances which are not attracted in the present case.

¶9

Key takeaways

The land in question forms part of public land earmarked for development of a bio-diversity park, a public project of significant ecological and environmental importance; such use attracts the bar contained in Section 4 of the Act.ratio¶9
The legislative intent behind the Special Provisions Act cannot be to legitimise or perpetuate encroachments on public land, particularly where such land is required for planned development or public utility projects; any contrary interpretation would defeat planned urban development and undermine public interest.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J), W.P.(C) 4519/2026, order dated 07.04.2026 (corrected and released on 15.04.2026): Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Geeta Pathak seeking quashing of demolition notice No. F.01(0-2)/2526/DD/BDP/SE/DDA/503 dated 24.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 (DDA) and restraint against demolition of property comprising Property No. 30 (approx. 780 sq. yds., Khasra No. 583) and Property No. 6 (approx. 1 Bigha 2½ Biswas, Khasra Nos. 581 (3-17) and 583 (2-18)), Village Maidangarhi / Sainik Farms, New Delhi — DISMISSED. Petitioner claimed title through her father's purchase via GPAs and a will dated 28.04.2026, and invoked Section 3 of the Special Provision Act, 2011. Held: (i) protection under Section 3 is unavailable by virtue of the express exclusion under Section 4; Section 4(a) bars relief for encroachment on public land except in limited circumstances not attracted here; (ii) the land is public land earmarked for a bio-diversity park, a public project of ecological and environmental importance, attracting the Section 4 bar; the Act cannot be read to legitimise or perpetuate encroachments on public land; (iii) rights under a GPA are not inheritable — on the death of the petitioner's father Shri Laxman Mishra, the GPA from Sh. J. P. Jethra automatically ended, and the will dated 28.04.2026 transferring GPA-based rights is of no consequence; (iv) the petitioner has no rights, title or interest on the documents filed, hence the petition was dismissed.

¶1

$~88

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4519/2026 GEETA PATHAK ....Petitioner Through: Ms Nandita Rao, Sr Adv with Amit Peswani and Ujjwal Sharma, Advs.

¶4

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mrs K. K. Kiran Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr Mohd Sueb Akhtar, Mrs Joohu Kumari, Advs. for R3 Mr. R. K. Dhawan, SC with Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. Pawan Karan Deo, Mr. V. K. Teng, Advs. for DDA Mr. Pramod Kumar, PC, Adv. for R13

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 07.04.2026

¶6

CM APPL. 22018/2026

¶7

Exemptions granted, subject to all just exceptions.

¶8

The application is disposed of.

¶9

W.P.(C) 4519/2026

¶10

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

¶11

“i. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the demolition notice No. F.01(0-2)/ 2526/DD/BDP/SE/DDA/503, dated 24.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4;

¶12

ii. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 16/04/2026 at 13:19:01

¶15

respondents not to carry out any demolition or interfere in the peaceful and settled possession of the petitioner in property in question comprising in Property No. 30 measuring approximately 780 square yards situated in Khasra No. 583, along with Property no.6 a parcel of land measuring approximately 1 Bigha 2½ Biswas (being 1/6th share out of total land measuring 6 Bighas 15 Biswas) comprised in Khasra Nos. 581 (3-17) and 583 (2- 18) situated in the revenue estate of Village Maidangarhi, New Delhi Lane No.W-22, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi without adopting the due course of law as has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India;

¶16

iii. during the pendency of the above captioned writ petition, restrain the respondents from entering/ visiting / demolishing the existing structures and boundary walls of the Property No. 30 measuring approximately 780 square yards situated in Khasra No. 583, along with Property no.6 a parcel of land measuring approximately 1 Bigha 2½ Biswas (being 1/6th share out of total land measuring 6 Bighas 15 Biswas) comprised in Khasra Nos. 581 (3-17) and 583 (2-18) situated in the revenue estate of Village Maidangarhi, New Delhi without adopting the due course of law as has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. ...”

¶17

It is stated by Ms. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 16/04/2026 at 13:19:01

¶20

the petitioner’s father purchased the property in question from the erstwhile owners through GPA’s. The property in question devolved on the petitioner by way of a duly executed will in favour of the petitioner and hence the petitioner is in use and occupation of the said property.

¶21

Additionally, she relies on Section 3 of the Special Provision Act, 2011 ( “the Act” ) which reads as under:-

¶22

“3. Enforcement to be kept in abeyance.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any relevant law or any rules, regulations or bye-laws made thereunder, the Central Government shall before the expiry of this Act, take all possible measures to finalise norms, policy guidelines, feasible strategies and make orderly arrangements to deal with the problem of encroachment or unauthorised development in the form of encroachment by slum dwellers and Jhuggi-Jhompri clusters, 1*** unauthorised colonies, village abadi area (including urban villages), and their extensions, existing farm houses involving construction beyond permissible building limits and schools, dispensaries, religious institutions, cultural institutions, storages, warehouses and godowns used for agricultural inputs or produce (including dairy and poultry) in rural areas built on agricultural land, as mentioned below:—

¶23

(a) orderly arrangements for relocation and rehabilitation of slum dwellers and Jhuggi-Jhompri clusters in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (Delhi Act 7 of 2010) and 2 [the Master Plan] to ensure its development in a sustainable,

¶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 16/04/2026 at 13:19:01

¶26

planned and humane manner;

¶27

* * * * *

¶28

[(c) orderly arrangements in accordance with the provisions of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Act, 2019 (45 of 2019), the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Regulations, 2019 and the regulations for village abadi area (including urban villages) and their extensions as per the following cut-off dates:—

¶29

(i) for unauthorised colonies as provided in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Regulations, 2019;

¶30

(ii) for village abadi area (including urban villages) and their extensions as existed on the 31st day of March, 2002 and where construction took place even beyond that date and up to 1st day of June, 2014;]

¶31

(d) policy regarding existing farm houses involving construction beyond permissible building limits;

¶32

(e) policy or plan for orderly arrangement regarding schools, dispensaries, religious institutions, cultural institutions, storages, warehouses and godowns used for agricultural inputs or produce (including dairy and poultry) in rural areas built on agricultural land and guidelines for redevelopment of existing godown clusters

¶33

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 16/04/2026 at 13:19:01

¶34

(including those for a storage of non-agricultural goods) required to cater to the needs of the people of the National Capital Territory of Delhi;

¶35

(f) orderly arrangements in respect of special areas in accordance with the Building Regulations for Special Area, Unauthorised Regularised Colonies and Village Abadis, 2010 within overall ambit of Master Plan in force; and

¶36

(g) policy or plan for orderly arrangements in all other areas of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in consonance with the Master Plan on its review.

¶37

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, status quo—

¶38

(i) as on the 1st day of January, 2006 in respect of encroachment or unauthorised development;

¶39

[(ii) in respect of unauthorised colonies identified under the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in unauthorised Colonies) Regulations, 2019, in respect of village abadi area (including urban villages) and their extensions, which existed on the 31st day of March, 2002, and in aforesaid categories, where construction took place up to 1st day of June, 2014, as mentioned in sub-section (1);]

¶40

(iii) in respect of special areas as per the Building Regulations for Special Area, Unauthorised Regularised Colonies and Village Abadis, 2010; and

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

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 16/04/2026 at 13:19:01

¶43

(iv) in respect of all other areas within the National Capital Territory of Delhi as on the 8th day of February, 2007, shall be maintained.

¶44

...”

¶45

Encroachment has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act which reads as under:

¶46

“(c) “encroachment” means unauthorised occupation of Government land or public land by way of putting temporary, semi-permanent or permanent structure for residential use or commercial use or any other use;”

¶47

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶48

Mr. Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Pathak, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. Mr. Dhawan, learned standing counsel accepts notice for respondent No. 4.

¶49

He relies on Section 4 of the Act which reads as under:

¶50

“4. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases.—During the period of operation of this Act, no relief shall be available under the provisions of section 3 in respect of the following encroachment or unauthorised development, namely:—

¶51

(a) encroachment on public land except in those cases which are covered under clauses 1 [(a) and (c)] of sub-section (1) of section 3;

¶52

(b) removal of slums and Jhuggi-Jhompri dwellers, 2*** unauthorised colonies or part thereof, village abadi area (including urban villages) and their extensions in accordance with the relevant

¶53

This is a digitally signed order.

¶54

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 16/04/2026 at 13:19:01

¶55

policies approved by the Central Government for clearance of land required for specific public projects.”

¶56

I am in agreement with the submission of Mr. Dhawan, learned standing counsel, that the protection sought to be invoked by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act is clearly unavailable in the facts of the present case by virtue of the express exclusion carved out under Section 4 of the said Act.

¶57

A plain reading of Section 4(a) makes it abundantly clear that no relief under Section 3 can be granted in cases of encroachment on public land, except in limited circumstances which are not attracted herein. The material placed on record indicates that the land in question forms part of public land earmarked for development of a bio-diversity park, which is a public project of significant ecological and environmental importance. Such use squarely falls within the category of land required for specific public purposes, thereby attracting the bar contained in Section 4.

¶58

It cannot be the legislative intent behind the Special Provisions Act to legitimise or perpetuate encroachments on public land, particularly where such land is required for planned development or public utility projects. Any interpretation to the contrary would defeat the very object of planned urban development and undermine public interest.

¶59

In the present case, at best, the father of the petitioner was a GPA holder in respect of the property in question from Sh. J. P. Jethra. Once the father of the petitioner, Shri Laxman Mishra died, the GPA in his favour automatically came to an end and the rights under GPA are not inheritable. Hence the will dated 28.04.2026 is of no consequence as it

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

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 16/04/2026 at 13:19:01

¶62

seeks to transfer the rights based on a GPA which to my understanding cannot be so done.

¶63

For the said reasons, I am unable to entertain the petition as the petitioner has no rights, title or interest based upon the documents filed in the petition.

¶64

The petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶65

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶66

APRIL 7, 2026/AS

¶67

( Corrected and released on 15.04.2026 )

¶68

Geeta Pathak v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Pathak v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Ct Ashok Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ravinder Singh Vs Indian Bank & Anr.

Nuraisa Khatoon Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sh Dinesh Kumar Vs State Bank of India and Others

Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appraisement)

Durgam Santoshini Vs National Testing Agency Nta & Ors.

Tata Play Ltd. Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

M/S Supreme Build-Cap Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle (5), Delhi

Ims (Institute of Mathematical Sciences) & Ors. Vs Sammaan Finserve Limited (Formely Known as Indianbulls Commercial Credit Limit)

C M S College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Patri Swamy Rural Teacher Training Institution Vs National Council for Teacher Education through Its Chairperson & Anr.

Indus Towers Limited Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Central Public Academy through Its Administrator Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Deen Dayal Upadhyay B.Ed. College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.