Disposed¶14

Jeet Pal Singh v. Union of India

Delhi HC19 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/4834/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jeet Pal Singh v. Union of India; W.P.(C) 4834/2021 & CM APPL. 2078/2026; High Court of Delhi; Justice Amit Bansal; order dated 19.03.2026; successor-in-interest; MCD impleaded as respondent; Railways; Public Premises Act, 1971; Estate Officer eviction order 14.06.2011; appeal allowed and remanded 21.08.2012; dispossession except in due course of law; interim status quo order 03.05.2023; CM APPL.2078/2026 vacation application; land transfer Railways to MCD; Karnal level Crossing, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi; injunction suit Civil Suit No.312/1992 decreed 29.03.1993.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except in accordance with law; all rights, contentions and legal remedies of the parties remain open. ¶14

Jeet Pal Singh Vs Union of India — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except in accordance with law; all rights, contentions and legal remedies of the parties remain open.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether MCD, in respect of the subject property, is the successor-in-interest of the Railways and is bound by the previous orders/Court directions passed against the Railways. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

MCD, in respect of the subject property, is the successor-in-interest of the Railways.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

MCD shall also be bound by the previous orders/Court directions that have been passed against the Railways.

¶13

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except in accordance with law.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Bansal, J.) disposed of W.P.(C) 4834/2021 (Jeet Pal Singh v. Union of India) by order dated 19.03.2026, directing that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from property No.T-16-A, Near Karnal level Crossing, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-110006 ('subject property') except in accordance with law. Held that MCD, in respect of the subject property, is the successor-in-interest of the Railways and shall be bound by the previous orders/Court directions passed against the Railways. Background: petitioner's family residing in the subject property since 1947; father's injunction suit (Civil Suit No.312/1992) decreed on 29.03.1993 on the Railways' statement not to dispossess except in due course of law; eviction order dated 14.06.2011 by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act, 1971; appeal allowed on 21.08.2012 with remand to the Estate Officer; no progress since; Railways' counter-affidavit states the proceedings are still pending; subject land stated to have been transferred to MCD by the Railway Authorities. All rights, contentions and legal remedies of the parties left open.

¶1

$~53

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4834/2021 & CM APPL. 2078/2026

¶4

JEET PAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Ms. Swati Mishra, Mr. Prince Yadav, Ms. Komal Yadav and Ms. Ankita Yadav, Advocates for Railways. Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R % 19.03.2026

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

W.P.(C) 4834/2021

¶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 25/03/2026 at 13:29:41

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s father along with his family has been residing in the property bearing no.T-16-A, Near Karnal level Crossing, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-110006 (‘subject property’) since 1947.

¶15

A suit for injunction was filed by the father of the petitioner against the Railway Authorities being Civil Suit No.312/1992 which was decreed on 29^th March, 1993, on the basis of the statement issued on behalf of the Railways that the Railways shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the premises except in due course of law.

¶16

It appears that, subsequently the Railways initiated proceedings under the Public Premises Act, 1971 to recover possession of the subject property from the petitioner and an eviction order was passed on 14^th June, 2011, against the petitioner by the Estate Officer, directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property.

¶17

The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the District Judge. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed vide judgement dated 21^st August 2012 and the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer for a fresh consideration.

¶18

It appears that no progress had been made in the said proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act, 1971 since then.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s property was encroached by the Railway Officials which led to filing of the present writ petition.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

W.P.(C) 4834/2021

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 25/03/2026 at 13:29:41

¶24

Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Railways wherein it is stated that the subject land belongs to the Railways and the proceedings under Public Premises Act, 1971 are still pending.

¶25

Subsequently, CM APPL.46833/2025 was filed on behalf of the respondent-MCD to get impleaded in the present writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 29^th October, 2025. 10. MCD moved an application being CM APPL.2078/2026 seeking vacation of the interim status quo order passed by this Court on 3^rd May, 2023.

¶26

In the application filed on behalf of the NDMC, it is stated that the subject land has been transferred to MCD by the Railway Authorities for facilitating the construction of the projects.

¶27

In the communication dated 12^th September, 2022 sent by the Railways to MCD, it has been stated that the subject land was illegally encroached by the petitioner.

¶28

Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is clear that MCD, in respect of the subject property, is the successor-in-interest of the Railways. Therefore, MCD shall also be bound by the previous orders/ Court directions that have been passed against the Railways.

¶29

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of while directing that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except in accordance with law.

¶30

All rights, contentions and legal remedies of the parties remain open.

¶31

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶32

MARCH 19, 2026 Jk

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

W.P.(C) 4834/2021

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 25/03/2026 at 13:29:41

Jeet Pal Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeet Pal Singh v. Union of India

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

Poonam Kaushik Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan (Hq) & Ors.

Harvinder Singh Lamba Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shree Gandhi Ashram Vs Shri Anil Sankhwal & Anr.

Arun Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satish Chander and Ors. Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Itd Cementation India Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indraprastha Gas Limited Vs UOI

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Jwo Vinod Kumar Agnihotri (695516-R)

Harshit Vashisht Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rajnish Kumar Sharma Vs Bar Council of Delhi & Anr.

Pankaj Tiwari Sole Proprietor Ofm/S Gopal Builders Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Masonic Public School Vs Delhi Jal Board

Pushpanjali Farm Owners and Residents Association Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Nehra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.