Delhi High Court
Chandra Shekhar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 30 July, 2025
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30th July, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 11207/2025 & CM APPL. 46090/2025, CM APPL.
46091/2025
CHANDRA SHEKHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Nikhil
Purohit, Mr. Jatin Lalwani, Mr. Jai
Rawat, Advocates
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, SC-MCD
(M:9811551525)
Mrs. Manika Tripathy, Mr. Akash
Mohan, Advocates for R-2
(M:9811831835)
Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel-
GNCTD with Ms. Prapti, Advocate
(M:9958018998)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order
dated 22nd July, 2025, passed by the Executive Engineer-II, South Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD"), directing a joint demarcation
program involving officials of the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA"),
MCD and the Revenue Department, on 31st July, 2025 to determine the
extent of encroachment on government land.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to
the order dated 22nd July, 2025, wherein, it is stated that the survey and
demarcation, will be carried out using the Total Station Method technology.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has been
passed purportedly pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C)
8286/2025, vide order dated 30th May, 2025 and by taking refuge of the said
order, the respondents are trying to demarcate the property of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the right and
title of the petitioner is concerned, the same already stands settled.
5. He draws the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 28 th
February, 2012, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge-03, South
District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in RCA 01/2010, titled as "Shri Chander
Shekhar Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi" and more specifically to
Paragraphs 7.2 and 7.6 of the said judgment, which read as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
7.2 The award No. 1770 (Ex. PW-1/8) enumerates various pieces of
land acquired, inclusive of land comprising Khasra No. 109/2 (0-08).
The award is not in respect of appeal property comprising Khasra No,
109/1, measuring 150 sq. yards. The land which was handed over to
respondent was through Kabza Karwai after its identification and
demarcation in the presence of various officials of Land Acquisition
Department, Revenue Authorities, Assistant Engineer and Junior
Engineer, besides other subordinate staff, the proceeding to this effect
was reduced into writing (Ex. PW-1/9 and Ex. PW-1/15). Witness/PW-
6 Ram Singh, Sadar Kanoongo also confirms that award No. 1770 is
not in respect of appeal property under Khasra No. 109/1. The appeal
property was neither acquired property nor there was award in
respect thereof nor it was handed over to the respondent. Therefore,
neither the appeal property was acquired nor it was handed over to
the respondent nor the respondent can claim that it was handed over
by the DDA. Otherwise also, it is apparent that the appellant has been
proved in possession of appeal property, the respondent was not found
or proved in possession of appeal property. Lastly, in site plan (Ex.
PW-1/16), the respondent had cross examined PW-1 in detail but the
two parks at point "X" and "Y" are located at distinct places from the
appeal property delineated in colour red.
xxx xxx xxx
7.6 In the Khasra Girdawari of 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98
reflects the name of Smt. Rajbala, D/o Shri Thokan. The Khasra
Girdawari of 1999-2000 (Ex. PW-3/A), reflects the ownership as
Shamlat Deh with the appellant Chander Shekhar as cultivator/
possessing it in respect of land comprising Khasra No. 109/ l (0-3) as
Gair Mumkin Abadi i.e. non cultivable land. All these documentary
record proved the case of appellant and the Trial Court has also
considered such a record but findings have been given contrary to it.
The appeal property is a private land. The appeal property is not a
public land nor it was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act nor it
was handed over to the respondent by DDA on 05.10.1988. Thus, the
findings returned by the Trial Court on Issue No. 1 and 2 and
consequently on Issue No. 8 are required to be set aside, by declaring
that it is not a public / government land but a private land and the
appellant is entitled to use it. The appellant had rightly filed the Suit
for Declaration and Injunction, the reliance can be placed on
Anathula Sudhakar vs. S.P. Bucchi Reddy (Dead) (2008) 4 SC 594,
wherein it was held that where the plaintiff is in possession but his
title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud, or where the
defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of possession
from the defendant, the plaintiff will here to sue for declaration of
title, and consequential relief of injunction.
xxx xxx xxx"
6. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the right of the petitioner in the property measuring
150 sq. yards in Khasra No. 109/1, bearing Municipal No. 103-G,
Jamroodpur, New Delhi, has been accepted.
7. He further submits that the decree clearly states that the said land is
the private property of the petitioner herein. He also draws the attention of
this Court to the decree passed in RCA 01/2010, which reads as under:
"The appellants/plaintiff above named filed appeal No. RCA 01/2010
to the Court of Ld. District Judge, Saket Courts Complex, Saket, New
Delhi from the final decree/judgment dated 31.08.2009 from the Court
of Ms. Ravinder Bedi, Ld. ASCJ, South, Delhi, in the above suit.
This appeal coming for hearing before me on 28.02.2012 in the
presence of proxy counsel with appellant and counsel for respondent.
It is ordered that the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned
decree I judgment dated 31.08.2009 on the points of Issues no. 1, 2
and 8, while holding/ decreeing the appeal in favour of the appellant
and against the respondent that the appeal property measuring 150
sq. yards, forming part of Khasra No. 109/1, bearing Municipal No.
103-G, Jamroodpur, New Delhi (more particularly shown in site plan
Ex. PW-1/16, in the suit file), is the private property of the appellant
and he has every right to use and occupy it and the appeal property is
not a public land. It is further decreed in favour of appellant and
against the respondent, while restraining the respondent by way of
permanent injunction, from interfering with the peaceful possession of
appeal property i.e. measuring 150 sq. yards, forming part of Khasra
No. 109/1, bearing Municipal No. 103-G, Jamroodpur, New Delhi and
from making any encroachment or doing any fencing thereon in any
manner whatsoever. Both the parties will bear their own costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this 28th February,
2012."
8. Thus, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the private land of
the petitioner cannot be disturbed in any manner.
9. He further submits that the petitioner is in occupation of the 150 sq.
yards of the property in question, in terms of the aforesaid decree in his
favour.
10. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the
respondents
11. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, i.e., MCD submits that
besides action for unauthorized construction, in view of the directions
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8286/2025, action with regard to
encroachment on public land is also to be taken. He, thus, submits that the
order for a joint demarcation program by the use of Total Station Method
technology, has rightly been issued by the MCD.
12. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that the
earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 8286/2025, had been filed with the
following prayer:
"xxx xxx xxx
a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 MCD, to
take appropriate action, including demolition and retrieval of
government/MCD land encroached upon by respondents no. 2 to 5
and to demolish the unauthorized construction raised by the
respondents no. 2 to 5; and
(b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
xxx xxx xxx"
13. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 30th May, 2025, in the following manner:
"1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Zamrudpur
Resident Welfare Association representing the residents of Village
Zamrudpur, Opp. Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi-110048,
seeking directions to respondent no.1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi
("MCD"), to take action against the encroachment and unauthorized
construction having been raised by respondent nos. 2 to 5.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
various representations have been made to the concerned authorities,
but till date no action has been taken.
3. He submits that respondent nos. 2 and 3 have made
encroachments in property no. 103-G, Khasra No. 109/1, Village
Zamrudpur, New Delhi-110048.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of
the Court to Annexure P-2 to submit that the yellow portion is the
extent of encroachment done by respondent nos. 2 and 3, while the red
portion shows the original area of the property in question. The said
site plan attached as Annexure P-2 is reproduced as under:-
5. Responding to the same, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.1/ MCD, submits that qua the property in question,
there have been multiple litigations.
6. He submits that an appeal is already pending before the learned
Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD), which is next listed on 1st August,
2025. He further submits that demolition order and sealing orders
have already been passed with respect to the property in question.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the proceedings before the learned ATMCD are qua the
unauthorized construction and not the encroachment.
8. Considering the submissions made before this Court, since it is
the case of the MCD that demolition and sealing proceedings have
already been initiated with respect to the property in question, it is
directed that in case the issue of encroachment has not been taken
cognizance of by the MCD, the same shall also be considered by the
MCD.
9. The MCD is directed to inspect the property in question, and
assess whether any encroachment is existing therein. In case any
encroachment is found to exist, requisite action shall be taken
following the due process of law.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along
with the pending applications, stands disposed of."
14. Perusal of the aforesaid order passed by this Court clearly shows that
the only direction issued by this Court is with regard to action to be taken by
MCD in case there is any encroachment on public land. However, this Court
has not directed that private property of the petitioner be disturbed in any
manner.
15. This Court takes note of the fact that there is already a judgment and
decree in favour of the petitioner, wherein, the right and title of the
petitioner has been recognized.
16. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is already a judgment and
decree in favour of the petitioner thereby recognizing the rights of the
petitioner in his property measuring 150 sq. yards, it is clarified that this
Court has not passed any direction, which would be in contradiction to the
private rights of the petitioner, having been recognized by the aforesaid
judgment and decree.
17. This Court further takes note of the submissions of learned counsel
for the petitioner that the area under ownership and possession of the
petitioner measures 150 sq. yards.
18. Accordingly, MCD, along with the other concerned authorities, are
granted liberty to measure the property of the petitioner and assess that the
same measures 150 sq. yards.
19. In case the property in occupation of the petitioner is beyond 150 Sq.
yards, requisite action shall be taken by the petitioner, in the first instance, to
remove the encroachment, within a period of four weeks of pointing out
such encroachment by the concerned authorities.
20. In case the area in occupation of the petitioner is beyond 150 sq.
yards, and the petitioner does not take the requisite action despite directions
by the concerned authorities, the concerned authorities are at liberty to take
necessary action for removal of the encroachment.
21. Needless to state that the proceedings pending before the Appellate
Tribunal MCD ("ATMCD"), with regard to the unauthorized construction,
shall continue and be decided, in accordance with law.
22. With the aforesaid clarification and direction, the present writ
petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
JULY 30, 2025/au
