Disposed¶27

Shrimati Tej Kaur v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC23 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/4829/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 4829/2023; Tej Kaur v GNCTD; Flood Control Department; forcible possession; demolition of building; unauthorised construction; restrain order 14.02.2023 Sub Divisional Magistrate; Khasra no. 31/2017 versus Khasra no.31/17/1; Land Acquisition Act, 2013; Article 226 writ court declining enquiry into complicated questions of fact; State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors.; 1967 SCC OnLine SC 15; petition disposed with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav J.

What did the court decide?

No directions granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to take an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. ¶27

Shrimati Tej Kaur Vs Government of the National Capital… — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No directions granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to take an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Determination of the Khasra No. applicable to the land in question and whether the petitioner is its owner. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the exercise of determining the applicable Khasra No. and the petitioner's ownership, requiring adduction of oral and documentary evidence, may not be appropriately conducted by the Writ Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India; these questions must be gone into by a court of competent jurisdiction.

¶19

Key takeaways

In view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (that a High Court may in appropriate cases decline an enquiry into complicated questions of fact and refer the party to another remedy), the Court disposed of the petition and reserved liberty to the petitioner to take an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.) disposed of W.P.(C) 4829/2023, in which Shrimati Tej Kaur sought directions to respondent no. 2 (Flood Control Department) not to take forcible possession of her property and to permit her to raise a building thereon. She had purchased the land vide Sale Deed dated 07.07.1971; after a restrain order of 14.02.2023 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (respondent no. 4) over alleged unauthorised construction, officials of respondent no. 2 demolished part of the building on 03.03.2023 without notice. The petitioner claimed the land fell in Khasra no. 31/2017; the respondents' counter affidavit placed it in Khasra no.31/17/1 (part of larger Khasra no.31/17), stating it had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Finding that determination of the applicable Khasra No. and ownership required oral and documentary evidence to be gone into by a court of competent jurisdiction, and relying on State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 SCC OnLine SC 15), the Court held the exercise may not be appropriately conducted by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, disposed of the petition and reserved liberty to the petitioner to take an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶1

$~17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4829/2023

¶4

Date of Decision : 23.03.2026

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

SHRIMATI TEJ KAUR .....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Devraj Singh, Advocate.

¶8

versus

¶9

GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Asheesh Kumar Meena, Adv. for IFCD.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT

¶12

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petition is for directions to respondent no. 2- Flood Control Department not to take forcible possession of the petitioner’s property. A further prayer for directions to respondent no. 2 to permit the petitioner to raise a building on the land in question is also made.

¶14

As per the case set up by the petitioner, she purchased the land in question vide Sale Deed dated 07.07.1971. However, the petitioner was served restrainment order dated 14.02.2023 by respondent no. 4- Sub Divisional Magistrate, whereby, it was alleged that a complaint was received

¶15

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:30.03.2026 12:22:56

¶16

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶17

regarding unauthorised construction in the land in question. The petitioner was further restrained from undertaking any further unauthorised construction and directed to appear before the authority, failing which, demolition orders would be passed. The petitioner claims to have replied to the said order on 17.02.2023. However, on 03.03.2023, officials of respondent no. 2 are stated to have arrived at the property in question without serving any notice on the petitioner and demolished a part of the building therein.

¶18

The petitioner contends that the land in question falls within Khasra no. 31/2017 and is owned by the petitioner, therefore, the same has wrongly been demolished and the petitioner is entitled to the necessary reliefs as prayed in the petition. 4. The respondents, however, in their counter affidavit, take the position that the land in question falls within Khasra no.31/17/1, which is part of larger Khasra no.31/17. According to the respondents, the land in question has been acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and the petitioner does not have any right therein.

¶19

On perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court finds the present lis requires determination of the Khasra No. applicable to the land in question, and whether the petitioner is its owner. These questions will have to be gone into by the Court of competent jurisdiction after allowing the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in that respect. The aforesaid exercise may not be appropriately conducted by the Writ Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss)

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:30.03.2026 12:22:56

¶25

Binapani Dei and Ors. ,¹ has held as under:

¶26

“6. It was the case of the first respondent in her petition before the High Court that the State had arbitrarily fixed her date of birth as April 16, 1907, and on that basis had declared her superannuated before she attained the age of 58 years. On behalf of the State it was denied that the true date of birth of the first respondent was April 10, 1910, and that the authorities of the State had arbitrarily and maliciously chosen to refix her date of birth. Under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised by the petition. Where an enquiry into complicated questions of fact arises in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the right of an aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined, the High Court may in appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case the question in dispute was about the regularity of the enquiry and the High Court was apparently of the view that the question whether the State acted arbitrarily did not raise any question of investigation into complicated issues of fact. No interference with the exercise of the discretion of the High Court is therefore called for.”

¶27

In view thereof, having considered all the facts and circumstances, the petition stands disposed of. Liberty, however, is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶28

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶29

MARCH 23, 2026/P

¶30

1 1967 SCC OnLine SC 15

¶31

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:30.03.2026 12:22:56

Shrimati Tej Kaur v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrimati Tej Kaur v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi & 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

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Bijender Singh and Ors.

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Rimpy Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Parveen Kohli @ Raju Kohli Vs Lieutenant Governor of Delhi

Queen Marys School & Anr. Vs Ashish Samuel & Anr.

Mahesh C Vs Union of India & Ors.

Damodar Valley Corporation Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Prateek Kharbanda Vs Union of India & Anr.

Indian Polo Association Vs Union of India

Sai Eternal Foundation Vs National Highways Logistic Management Ltd. (Nhlml)

Late Dalip Srivatsava Vs Enforcement Directorate Thr Additional Director

Shashank Srivatsava Vs Enfocement Directorate Thr Additional Director