Disposed¶45

Priyanka v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8577/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.; W.P.(C) 8575-8577/2026 (Bharti, Sunil Kumar, Priyanka v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr.); Orders/Notices dated 28.04.2026 by Estate Officer under Section 5A PPE Act, 1971; show cause notice; natural justice; opportunity of hearing; Order dated 04.06.2026; grievance adequately addressed; petitions disposed of; CM APPL. stay and exemption applications; counsel Shekhar Nanavaty (petitioners), Tarveen Singh Nanda (Delhi Cantonment Board).

What did the court decide?

None; the petitions, along with pending applications, were disposed of without further orders as the grievance was found adequately addressed. ¶45

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petitions, along with pending applications, were disposed of without further orders as the grievance was found adequately addressed.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the show cause notices dated 28.04.2026 issued under Section 5A PPE Act, 1971 pre-judged the outcome by stating that non-compliance would result in removal of the structure and recovery of the cost as arrears of land revenue, contrary to due process and natural justice. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

In view of the subsequent Order dated 04.06.2026, whereby the Petitioners were heard and their objections considered, and having regard to the limited challenge raised, the grievance sought to be canvassed by the Petitioners stands adequately addressed.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Since the Petitioners have already been afforded an opportunity of hearing and their objections duly considered by the learned Estate Officer, no further orders are called for in the present proceedings.

¶44

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.) (Oral, 02.07.2026): Three writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution challenged Orders/Notices dated 28.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 (Ld. Estate Officer) under Section 5A of the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971, the grievance being that the show cause notices indicated pre-contemplated removal of the alleged unauthorised structures and recovery of removal cost as arrears of land revenue, without assurance of due consideration. On advance service, the Respondents pointed out that the Estate Officer had already afforded a hearing and passed an Order dated 04.06.2026 considering the Petitioners' objections and written representation. Holding the grievance adequately addressed and no further orders called for, the Court disposed of the petitions along with pending applications.

¶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