Disposed¶45

Sunil Kumar v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8576/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Public Premises Eviction Act 1971 Section 5A show cause notice; unauthorised structure removal; cost recoverable as arrears of land revenue; opportunity of hearing / natural justice; Estate Officer order dated 04.06.2026; petitions disposed as grievance adequately addressed / infructuous; Articles 226 & 227 writ; Delhi Cantonment Board. Useful for: writ challenges to PPE Act eviction/show-cause notices rendered moot by a subsequent hearing and order of the Estate Officer; no precedents cited, no dissent; no monetary award.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the Estate Officer's Order dated 04.06.2026 revealed that the Petitioners were duly represented through learned counsel, their submissions were considered, and their written representation dated 04.06.2026 was taken on record by the learned Estate Officer. ¶39

Sunil Kumar Vs Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Orders/Notices dated 28.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 (Ld. Estate Officer) under Section 5A of the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971 were arbitrary, illegal and passed without due process so as to warrant being set aside, with direction for a fresh show cause notice and a proper hearing consistent with natural justice. +1 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

¶39

Key takeaways

In view of the aforesaid developments (hearing afforded and Order dated 04.06.2026 passed) and having regard to the limited challenge raised in the present Petitions, the grievance sought to be canvassed by the Petitioners stands adequately addressed.ratio¶40
Since the Petitioners had already been afforded an opportunity of hearing and their objections had been duly considered by the learned Estate Officer, no further orders were called for in the present proceedings.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common oral disposal of three connected writ petitions - W.P.(C) 8575/2026 (Bharti), W.P.(C) 8576/2026 (Sunil Kumar) and W.P.(C) 8577/2026 (Priyanka) - filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against Orders/Notices dated 28.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 (Ld. Estate Officer) under Section 5A of the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971, seeking mandamus to set aside the notices, a fresh notice with proper hearing, and restraint on detrimental action till then. The main grievance was the notices' language that on refusal or failure to comply the structures would be removed and the cost of removal recovered as arrears of land revenue, giving the impression that the occupants' responses would not receive due consideration and that removal was already contemplated. Respondents, on advance service, submitted the petitions stood infructuous: the Estate Officer had already afforded an opportunity of hearing, considered objections and submissions, taken the written representation dated 04.06.2026 on record, and passed an Order dated 04.06.2026. Held (perusal of that Order confirming representation and consideration of submissions): with the limited challenge raised, the grievance stands adequately addressed; no further orders called for; petitions and all pending applications (stay and exemption CM APPLs.) disposed. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J, 02.07.2026.

¶1

$~17 to 19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 02.07.2026

¶4

W.P.(C) 8575/2026, CM APPL. 40184/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 40185/2026 (exemption)

¶5

BHARTI

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Adv.

¶8

versus

¶9

DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advocate for Delhi Cantonment Board

¶10

¶11

W.P.(C) 8576/2026, CM APPL. 40186/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 40187/2026 (exemption)

¶12

SUNIL KUMAR

¶13

.....Petitioner

¶14

Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Adv. versus

¶15

DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advocate for Delhi Cantonment Board

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) 8577/2026, CM APPL. 40188/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 40189/2026 (exemption)

¶18

PRIYANKA .....Petitioner

¶19

Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Adv.

¶20

versus

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR W.P.(C) 8575/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 4 BHATIA Signing Date: 03.0 7.2026 15:49:16

¶23

DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advocate for Delhi Cantonment Board

¶24

CORAM:

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶26

JUDGEMENT (Oral)

¶27

By this common Order, and with the consent of the parties, the above-captioned Writ Petitions are being disposed of together, as they arise out of almost identical facts and involve common questions for consideration.

¶28

The present Writ Petitions, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the Orders/ Notices dated 28.04.2026 passed by the Respondent No.2 and seek the following reliefs:

¶29

“(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus thereby setting aside the impugned Order/ notice dated 28/04/2026 passed by the respondent no.2, i.e.Ld. Estate Officer, under Section 5A of the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971 in an arbitrary, illegal, impromptu manner and without following due process of law;

¶30

(b) Issue an appropriate Writ directing the respondent no.2 to issue fresh show cause notice under Section 5 A PPE Act, 1971 and to provide opportunity of being heard/proper hearing in terms of the well established principle of natural justice without any premeditated mindset, in the interest of justice and fair play;

¶31

(c) Issue an appropriate Writ thereby restraining the respondent No.1-department from taking any detrimental action against the petitioner till the proper notice is issued/ personal hearing is provided to the petitioner and an order is passed by the respondent no. 2 thereafter, in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, submits that

¶33

the main grievance that is sought to be canvassed relates to the part of the show cause notices which state “In the event of your refusal or

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR W.P.(C) 8575/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 4 BHATIA Signing Date: 03.0 7.2026 15:49:16

¶36

failure to comply with this notice within the period specified above, the said structure shall be removed by the Estate Officer authorised by him and the cost of such removal shall be recovered from you as arrears of land revenue.”

¶37

Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the show cause notices, in some manner, give an impression that the response of the Petitioners to the said notices would not receive due consideration and that the authorities have already contemplated removal of the alleged unauthorised structures.

¶38

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on advance service, submits that the present Petitions have been rendered infructuous inasmuch as the apprehension expressed by the Petitioners no longer survives. He further submits that the learned Estate Officer has already afforded an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and, after considering their objections and submissions, has passed an Order dated 04.06.2026. A copy of the said order has been handed over in Court and is taken on record.

¶39

A perusal of the Order dated 04.06.2026 reveals that the Petitioners were duly represented through learned counsel, their submissions were considered, and the written representation dated 04.06.2026 was also taken on record by the learned Estate Officer.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid developments, and having regard to the limited challenge raised in the present Petitions, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance sought to be canvassed by the Petitioners stands adequately addressed.

¶41