Dismissed

Ram Bhagat Yadav v. Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Jan 2026CONT.CAS(C)/299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought punishment for alleged non-compliance with writ directions directing him to approach DDA's Special Task Force over encroachments. DDA's affidavit showed the complaint was registered, considered and closed with no encroachment found and the area taken up for regularisation. Petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to pursue other remedies; the court dismissed it as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings; pending applications disposed of.

Ram Bhagat Yadav Vs Gyanesh Bharti & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 299/2021

¶4

RAM BHAGAT YADAV .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate. versus

¶6

GYANESH BHARTI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vaibhav Mishra and Mr. Ekansh Mishra, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Kapil Dutta and SC for MCD.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.01.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of

¶12

Courts Act, 1971 seeks the following prayers:

¶13

“A. Punish the contemnors for not complying with the orders dated 24/01/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P(C) 4774/2018, titled as Ram Bhagat Yadav V /s South Delhi Municipal Corporation.

¶14

B. Pass any other or further orders which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶15

Vide order dated 24.01.2019 in W.P.(C) 4774/2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing the said petition passed the following directions:

¶16

“Accordingly, I am of the view that the correct course of action in this matter would be to dispose of the present writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to file its grievance before the Special Task Force in accordance with the policy and procedure laid down for the purpose m DDA's Office Memorandums dated 25.04.2018 and

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 23/01/2026 at 11:51:05

¶19

23.05.2018.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly he had approached the STF, however, his grievance with respect to the illegal encroachments has still not been addressed.

¶21

Various status reports have been filed on behalf of the DDA, however the last affidavit that is placed on record is of 01.07.2025, which records as under:

¶22

The present affidavit is being filed by the DDA in response to the aforesaid queries of this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

I state that Complainant - Ram Bhagat did not file the Complaint dated 11.06.2019 ("Complainant") with STF directly but had filed it with SDMC.

¶24

Subsequently, this Complaint was forwarded by SDMC to STF.

¶25

STF registered this Complaint under reference ID SNS201912173 on STF's online portal www.stf.dda.org.in ( “Online Portal” ).

¶26

In this regard it is pertinent to note the following:

¶27

(i) Since the Complainant did not provide his Mobile Number and Email Address, the same in not reflected in the online portal.

¶28

(ii) Status of the Complainant is regularly updated on the website. Status of complaint can only be accessed on the portal subject to complainant having provided its email address and/or mobile number.

¶29

(iii) Cases where complainant (like in present case) did not provide his Mobile Number and Email Address, status could have been checked by the complainant by visiting the STF office after verification of his identity.

¶30

In the present case, on 23.07.2020, Complainant's Complaint was closed with the status report mentioning that the claim of the complainant Shri Ram Bhagat Yadav regarding alleged encroachment does not establish, as DDA has already taken up the matter of regularisation of subject area. Print out of the ATR upload by MCD on online portal is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A.

¶31

Further, on 16.06.2025, MCD updated the following on online portal:

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 23/01/2026 at 11:51:05

¶34

"Inspection of the property was done, and no encroachment was found at ground level as area of the property is 15.10 Sqm, however projection at Municipal land was noticed and it is monolithic in nature. so further action will be taken by building department. " A print out from Online Portal regarding reference ID SNS201912173, establishing the aforesaid is annexed herewith and

¶35

marked as Annexure B.

¶36

The disputed land is occupied by descendent of chulla tax payer (Ms. Shakuntala Gautam D/o Late Shri Ram Charan), and DDA has taken up the matter for regularisation. Documents in this regard has been submitted by DDA before this Hon'ble Court on 12.01.2024, a copy of which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure C.

¶37

This matter was even considered in STF's 68" Meeting held on 25.06.2021, wherein it was confirmed that there exists no encroachment on the disputed land. A copy of the Minutes of Meeting dated 09.07.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure D.

¶38

After STF's 142 Meeting held on 10.01.2025, a decision was taken to upload the latest status on the web portal, which in effect is the Status Report of 23.07.2020, which is already available on the STF Portal. A copy of the relevant extract of Minutes of Meeting dated 06.02.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure E.

¶39

Accordingly, the Complainant’s Complaint was attended by STF and closed on 23.07.2020, holding that there exist no encroachment on the disputed land.

¶40

Further, the Complainant has no locus to maintain the subject contempt petition and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶41

The contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and as per the records maintained by STF.”

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DDA has in fact regularised an unauthorised construction on a public land. He further seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 23/01/2026 at 11:51:05

¶45

Leave granted.

¶46

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Needless to say, the petitioner is always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶48

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶49

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶50

JANUARY 20, 2026 /bsr/sg

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 23/01/2026 at 11:51:05

Ram Bhagat Yadav v. Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bhagat Yadav v. Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Garg & Ors. Vs Kaushal Raj

Dr Ratan Lal Vs Satya Narain Prakash Punj & Ors.

State Bank of India Vs M/S Allta Industries Private Limited & Ors.

National Federation of Fisherman Cooperative Ltd. Vs B.K Mishra & Ors.

Vikram Kumar Vs Rajender Kumar & Anr.

Achhe Patel Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs Shri Govind Mohan and Ors.

Sree Vyshnavi B.Ed. College Vs Prof Meena Chandawarkar, Chairperson, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Ed

Puran Chand Vs Dr Ved Kumar Verma & Anr.

Multiple Zones India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Educational Consultants India Ltd.

Dr Ratan Lal Vs Satya Narain Prakash Punj & Ors.

Gulshan Kumar Vs Indu Soni Anr. & Anr.

Prerna Mehta Vs Parag Ahlawat