Shri Dilbagh Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

$~75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 6255/2026

SHRI DILBAGH SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N. S. Dalal, Ms. Nidhi Dalal, Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Karan Mann and Ms. Rachna Dalal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for GNCTD.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R % 11.05.2026

¶10

Issue notice. Mr. Kapil Dutta, counsel for the MCD, and Mr. Nitin Kumar, counsel for GNCTD, accept notice. Considering the limited nature of relief noted hereinafter, no Counter Affidavit is necessary or called for.

¶11

The Petitioner claims ownership and possession in respect of land falling in Khasra No. 55 situated in the revenue estate of Village Raghopur, Delhi. In support of his claim, reliance is placed upon the Khatoni and other land revenue records. The Petitioner also states that adjacent to Khasra No. 55 lies Khasra No. 56, which is stated to be a passage adjoining the old Lal Dora area of the village.

¶12

It is the Petitioner’s case that certain disputes arose concerning

¶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 12/05/2026 at 12:51:03

¶15

alleged encroachment over the adjoining passage, leading to proceedings before this Court in W.P.(C) 14892/2025 and connected matters, which were disposed of by order dated 25^th September, 2025 with directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [“ MCD ”] to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the MCD is stated to have issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner.

¶16

The Petitioner contends that on 6^th March, 2026, the MCD carried out demolition action in respect of the subject property without prior demarcation of Khasra Nos. 55 and 56. According to the Petitioner, the demolition was undertaken on the assumption that the Petitioner had encroached upon land comprised in Khasra No. 56, which is disputed by him.

¶17

Mr. N.S. Dalal, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that notwithstanding the demolition already carried out, the Petitioner is confining the relief sought in the present petition to demarcation of Khasra Nos. 55 and 56, as well as the old Lal Dora adjoining Khasra No. 56.

¶18

The Court is also apprised that the village in question has been urbanised, and a jurisdictional ambiguity arises regarding the authority competent to undertake the demarcation exercise in respect of the subject land.

¶19

However, on this aspect, in Chandrakala & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.¹ , this Court had directed that the demarcation exercise be carried out through a third-party agency in coordination between the concerned authorities, so that the process is not held up pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue. The same approach has also been followed in

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 12/05/2026 at 12:51:03

¶22

other such matters concerning demarcation in urbanised villages.

¶23

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with directions that the demarcation exercise in respect of Khasra Nos. 55 and 56, Village Raghopur, Delhi, as well as the adjoining old Lal Dora area, shall be carried out through a third-party agency in coordination between GNCTD and MCD, within a period of eight weeks from today. The Petitioner or his representative shall be permitted to participate in the demarcation exercise, and the expenses thereof shall be borne exclusively by the Petitioner.

¶24

It is made clear that the aforesaid directions are subject to any orders passed by the Full Bench in Original Reference No. 1/2024, titled Court on its own motion v. NEMO . It is further clarified that the present order has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the said reference.

¶25

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶26

MAY 11, 2026/ hc

¶27

1 W.P.(C) No. 5930/2026.

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 12/05/2026 at 12:51:03

Shri Dilbagh Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dilbagh Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Sharma & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Workmen Represented by Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union Vs Management of Air India (Formerly Known as Indian Airlines Ltd.)

Union of India & Ors. Vs Prasanta Mondal

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Somnath

Cpio Upsc Vs D Thamizhamani

Hasan Agah and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Allahabad Bank Vs R.S.Saini

Praveen Singh Chauhan Security Agency Private Limited Vs Public Works Department (Pwd) & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs the Govt of N C T Delhi

Wg Cdr Sandeep Malhotra (Retd.) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Yadav Vs Translation Health Science and Technology Institute and Ors.

Guru Harkishan Public School Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.