Parveen Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6426/2026 & CM APPL. 31681/2026

¶4

PARVEEN KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Mr. Kshitiz Mahipal, Mr. Sunil Dutt Vats, Mr. Devvrat Sharma and Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi and Ms. Minu Kumari, Advocates for R-1 to 4. Ms. Deepika, Ms. Shreya, Mr. Vikram Beniwal and Mr. Raghav Tyagi, Advocates for R-5.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 23.07.2026

¶11

The present petition has been instituted by the Petitioner, Parveen Kumar, seeking a direction to the concerned State authorities to implement the demarcation report/plan dated 14^th November, 2011 and the order dated 21^st December, 2015 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Appeal Case No. 15/2014/DCCEN/786-792/2014/18030. A further direction is sought restraining the Respondents from altering or disturbing the boundaries of Khasra No. 315 situated at Main Road, Village Burari, Delhi.

¶12

From the pleadings and documents on record, it is apparent that disputes between the Petitioner and the private Respondent, namely Respondent No. 5, have persisted for a considerable period and have

¶13

W.P.(C) 6426/2026 Page 1 of 5

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 27/07/2026 at 15:37:57

¶16

resulted in multiple rounds of litigation. The writ petition itself makes reference to various proceedings instituted inter se the parties. Significantly, it is not disputed that Respondent No. 5, along with certain other parties, has also instituted a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, wherein the principal relief sought is implementation of a demarcation report and consequential injunctive reliefs. The relevant prayers in the said suit read as under:

¶17

“(a) Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction thereby directing the Defendants to complete the work/ project of the Road/ Nallah in terms of Demarcation Report/ Map dated 28.11.2011 as Annexed with the plaint and not according to whims and facies of the Defendant.

¶18

(b) Pass a decree of permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendants, their agents, workers, representative, officers etc. to carry on any construction/ demolition except that mentioned in the Demarcation report dated 28.12.2011 as annexed with the plaint.

¶19

(c) To file action Taken Report within a time bound manner.

¶20

(d) And may pass any other Direction/order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

¶21

A perusal of the reliefs claimed in the civil suit leaves little room for doubt that the controversy between the parties centres around the correctness, legal effect and implementation of rival demarcation reports concerning the subject property. While Respondent No. 5 places reliance upon the demarcation report dated 28^th November, 2011, the Petitioner seeks enforcement of the demarcation report dated 14^th November, 2011. The competing claims are not confined to the mere execution of a demarcation exercise. They raise interconnected questions relating to the identification and extent of the subject land, determination of its boundaries, the parties’ respective rights over the disputed area and, to the extent such rights are contested, issues bearing upon title and possession. Resolution of these

¶22

W.P.(C) 6426/2026 Page 2 of 5

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 27/07/2026 at 15:37:57

¶25

questions would necessarily require a comprehensive adjudication of disputed facts.

¶26

In the opinion of this Court, such issues cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Determination of the correctness of rival demarcation reports, resolution of boundary disputes, and adjudication of the parties’ respective claims in relation to the subject land would inevitably require appreciation of evidence and examination of disputed questions of fact. These are matters that fall squarely within the domain of the competent Civil Court, which is better suited to record evidence and render findings after a full-fledged trial. The relief sought in the present writ petition, though framed as one for implementation of an existing demarcation report, would in substance require the Court to first determine which of the competing demarcation exercises correctly reflects the boundaries of the land in question. Such determination is not suited to writ proceedings.

¶27

In this backdrop, counsel for the Petitioner submits that although Respondent No. 5 has instituted the aforesaid civil suit seeking implementation of a demarcation report, the Petitioner was not initially impleaded as a party thereto, notwithstanding the fact that the outcome of the proceedings would directly affect his rights and interests. It is submitted that upon acquiring knowledge of the suit, the Petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking impleadment, which remains pending consideration before the Trial Court.

¶28

On the aforesaid aspect, Ms. Deepika, counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5, submits on instructions that Respondent No. 5 has no

¶29

W.P.(C) 6426/2026 Page 3 of 5

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 27/07/2026 at 15:37:57

¶32

objection to the Petitioner being impleaded as a defendant in the civil suit and shall not oppose the Petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The said statement is taken on record.

¶33

Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the pendency of the civil suit, this Court is of the considered view that the rights and contentions of the parties ought to be agitated and adjudicated in those proceedings. Once the Petitioner is afforded an opportunity to participate in the suit and place his claims before the Civil Court, all issues concerning the validity, effect and implementation of the rival demarcation reports can be comprehensively examined in a forum competent to undertake such adjudication. Entertaining the present writ petition would not only result in parallel proceedings but may also lead to overlapping and potentially inconsistent findings on issues already seized of by the Civil Court.

¶34

In view of the above, and binding Respondent No. 5 to the statement made through counsel that the Petitioner’s application for impleadment shall not be opposed, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the competent Civil Court, which shall consider the same on their own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation contained in the present order.

¶35

It is further clarified that, in the event the Petitioner seeks to assert any counterclaim, independent cause of action or any other substantive relief against Respondent No. 5 or any other party to the suit, it shall be open to him to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law, including under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶36

W.P.(C) 6426/2026 Page 4 of 5

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 27/07/2026 at 15:37:57

¶39

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms, along with all pending applications.

¶40

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶41

JULY 23, 2026 as

¶42

W.P.(C) 6426/2026 Page 5 of 5

¶43

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 27/07/2026 at 15:37:57

Parveen Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

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

Sri Padmavathi College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Shahid Baig Vs the Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

N.C. Nayyar Vs M/S. Greaves Cotton Ltd.

Kishan Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

M/S Voltas Limited Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs DDA & Anr.

Jyoti Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms Sarita Singh and Ors. Vs the Comissioner MCD and Ors.

Kishan Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Renu Dhayal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri Satpal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Aditi Raj Shukla Vs Center for Development of Advanced Computing & Anr.

Anver Aziz Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Smt Santosh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others