Disposed¶31

Ajay Mittal v. Public Works Department & Anr.

Delhi HC25 May 2026W.P.(C)/7365/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ajay Mittal v. Public Works Department, W.P.(C) 7365/2026, Delhi High Court, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, 25.05.2026; channel gate and box-like structure outside Shop No. 2, Pocket F-22, Sector-3, Rohini; dispute prima facie private; PWD to verify public-land encroachment within three weeks; petition disposed of with liberty; CM APPL. 35894/2026 (exemption) allowed; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No substantive mandamus granted; PWD directed to verify whether either party encroached public land and to act in accordance with law within three weeks, with liberty to inspect the petitioner's property; petitioner's liberty to pursue legal remedies expressly preserved; petition disposed of. ¶31

Ajay Mittal Vs Public Works Department & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus or directions should issue to Respondent No.1 (PWD) to take time-bound action against Respondent No.2 for installing a channel gate and box-like structure outside the petitioner's shop on public utility land, including demolition of the alleged unauthorised encroachment/construction.

¶17

Court's answer

The dispute over the channel gate is prima facie private in nature; if aggrieved, the petitioner must pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Court directs that if the channel gate has been installed on the public road, the Public Works Department (PWD) is under an obligation to do the needful.

¶25

Key takeaways

The PWD shall first verify the facts as to whether the petitioner or respondent no.2 have encroached public land or otherwise; if so, it is at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.ratio¶26
The PWD shall do the needful within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order and is at liberty to inspect the petitioner's property as well.ratio¶27
If the petitioner's grievance is not fully mitigated, he remains at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 7365/2026, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., order dated 25.05.2026) disposed of a petition by Ajay Mittal seeking directions to the Public Works Department against respondent no.2's allegedly unauthorised channel gate and box-like structure outside his shop at Sector-3, Rohini. Holding the dispute prima facie private in nature, the Court nonetheless directed the PWD to verify whether the petitioner or respondent no.2 had encroached public land and to take recourse in accordance with law within three weeks, with liberty to inspect the premises; the petitioner's remedies were preserved and the petition stood disposed of (order dasti).

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7365/2026

¶4

AJAY MITTAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel (GNCTD), Ms. Purnima Jain, Ms. Shivpa Taneja, Mr. Madhur, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Sagar Shivam Jaiswal, Advocate for R-2.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶11

O R D E R % 25.05.2026

¶12

CM APPL. 35894/2026 (for exemption)

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 7365/2026

¶16

The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

¶17

“(i) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions to the Respondent No.1 to take time bound strict action against the Respondent no.2 in respect of installing a Channel Gate and box like structure outside is Shop bearing address Shop no. 3, Ground Floor, H. No. 103, Pocket F-22, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085 illegally and unauthorizedly on the Public Utility Land, thereby demolishing the unauthorized and illegal encroachment/ construction;

¶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 26/05/2026 at 13:13:21

¶20

(ii) Issue directions to the Respondents No.1 to act as per law in a timebound manner upon the representations/complaints given by the Petitioner qua the unauthorized Channel Gate and box-like structure installed outside his shop bearing Shop no. 3, Ground Floor, H. No. 103, Pocket F-22, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085 of the Petitioner;

¶21

(iii) Take necessary action on the erring officials who directly helped the Respondent No.2 to carry out illegal activities for the reasons best known to them;

¶22

(iv) Pass any other necessary/appropriate directions in the matter as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶23

The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the alleged illegal installation of channel gate by respondent no.2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of property bearing address Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, H. No. 103, Pocket F-22, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085. The shop adjoining his property is owned by respondent no.2, which has obstructed and hindered the side view of the petitioner’s shop.

¶24

The dispute involved herein prima facie seems to be private in nature. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid act, he will have to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶25

The Court, however, directs that if the channel gate has been installed on the public road, the Public Works Department (‘ PWD’ ) is also under an obligation to do the needful.

¶26

Let the PWD to first verify the facts as to whether the petitioner or the respondent no.2 have encroached public land or otherwise. If that be so, the said department shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶27

Let the PWD to do the needful within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall also be at liberty to inspect the petitioner’s property as well.

¶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 26/05/2026 at 13:13:21

¶30

Needless to state that if the grievance of the petitioner is not fully mitigated, he shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶31

With these observations and liberty, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Order dasti.

¶33

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶34

MAY 25, 2026 Nc

¶35

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 26/05/2026 at 13:13:21

Ajay Mittal v. Public Works Department & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Mittal v. Public Works Department & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhai Parmanand Vidya Mandir Vs Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi

Ravindra Public School Vs Director of Education and Anr.

Apeejay School, Saket (for 19-20) Vs Directorate of Education

Seetendra Kumar Sinha Vs Union of India

Raj Bala Vs UOI & Ors.

Graphisad Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rpfas Technologies Private Limited Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vikram Choudhary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kcc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

Muskan Rathi Vs the Indian Kurash Association & Anr.

Vinod Saini Vs Registrar of Companies and Ors.

Shweta Tuteja & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramakrishna Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commission for Air Quality Management (Caqm) & Ors.

Bhuthalingam Hariharan Vs Bureau of Immigration