Delhi High Court
M/S Prabutav Estates Private Limited & ... vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 July, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~69, 72, 73 and 74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 09 th July 2025
69
+ W.P.(C) 9289/2025
M/S PRABUTAV ESTATES
PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manashwy Jha, Panel Counsel
(Civil) for R-1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K.
Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar and
Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
R-2/LAC.
72
+ W.P.(C) 14604/2023
VINOD GUGNANI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manashwy Jha, Panel Counsel
(Civil) for R-1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K.
Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar and
Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
R-2/LAC.
73
+ W.P.(C) 14609/2023
VINOD GUGNANI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL W.P.(C) 9289/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 10
VASHIST
Signing Date:11.07.2025
19:46:27
Through: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manashwy Jha, Panel Counsel
(Civil) for R-1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K.
Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar and
Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
R-2/LAC.
74
+ W.P.(C) 8787/2025
M/S TANGENT AGRO PVT LTD & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manashwy Jha, Panel Counsel
(Civil) for R-1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K.
Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar and
Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
R-2/LAC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 39302/2025 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 9289/2025
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 62966/2023 (for amendment) in W.P.(C) 14604/2023
3. This is an application for amendment of a typographical error in
the writ petition. There is no objection to the request.
4. The application is allowed.
5. Amended writ petition is taken on Board and taken up for hearing
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
W.P.(C) 9289/2025
W.P.(C) 14604/2023
W.P.(C) 14609/2023
W.P.(C) 8787/2025
6. These four writ petitions concern decisions by the Respondent -
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ["GNCTD"] with
regard to issuance of Land Status Report ["LSR"] and/or No-Objection
Certificate ["NOC"] for the sale of land in village Dera Mandi, Tehsil
Mehrauli, New Delhi. As all four petitions concern similar applications,
in respect of the same village, they have been taken up for hearing
together, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
7. In all four cases, the land was originally allotted to the
predecessors-in-interest of the current owners under Section 74(4) of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ["DLR Act"], which reads as follows:
"74. Admission to land mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of
section 6 or to waste land for reclamation.
xxx xxx xxx
(4) At the end of five years, the Gaon Sabha shall report to the Revenue
Assistant the extent to which reclamation has been made. The Revenue
Assistant shall, after necessary enquiry and after hearing the Asami,
either order the termination of the lease and his ejectment if there has
been no reclamation or extend his lease for another period of two
years. If, however, the land has been duly reclaimed during the period
of five years or the extended period, the Revenue Assistant shall direct
the Gaon Sabha to admit the Asami as Bhumidhar under section 73.
The Asami on his admission as Bhumidhar shall be liable to pay such
land revenue as shall be equal to 50 per cent of the rent calculated at
the prevailing village rate of rent together with cesses and local rates,
but he shall not be liable to pay any compensation."
8. A description of the land in question in each of the four writ
petitions, and the applications for issuance of NOCs is contained in the
following table:
"Writ No. Detail of Application for LSR/NOC filed by the Petitioners
WPC No. Application No. 90580000006936 dated 16.01.2023 for LSR/NOC
14604/2023 for sale of 3 Bigha 7 Biswa of land in Mustatil No. 61, Killa No. 7
(2-0) and 8 (1-7) Village Dera Mandi.
WPC No. Application No. 90580000006935 dated 16.01.2023 for LSR/NOC
14609/2023 for sale of 9 Bigha 4 Biswa of land in Mustatil No. 61, Killa No. 6
(1-09), 7 (2-16), 8 (3-09), and 9 (1-10) Village Dera Mandi.
WPC No. Application No. 90580000012003 dated 04.01.2024 filed by
8787/2025 Petitioners for LSR/NOC for sale of 6 Bigha 4 Biswa 16 Biswasini
of land in Mustatil No. 34, Killa No. 20 min (1-9-4), Mustatil No.
33, Killa No. 16 min. (2-2-1), 17 min. (2-8), Village Dera Mandi.
WPC No. Application No. 90580000014533 dated 12.08.2024 filed for
9289/2025: LSR/NOC for sale of 12 Bigha of land in Mustatil No. 33, Khasra
No. 24 (4-16), 25 (4-11) & Mustatil No. 34, Khasra No. 21 (2-13),
Village Dera Mandi."
9. Petitioner No. 1 in each of the four petitions is the present owner of
the land. The other petitioners are the intending purchasers, to whom the
present owners propose to sell the subject land.
10. In anticipation of registration of the proposed sale deeds, the
petitioners applied to the revenue authorities for grant of LSRs/NOCs.
Their grievance is that the applications have been rejected on the ground
that the land cannot be transferred, having been originally allotted under
Section 74(4) of the DLR Act.
11. I have heard Mr. Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.2, and Mr. Manashwy Jha, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3
and 4.
12. Mr. Singh submits that the questions raised in these petitions have
been adjudicated in favour of the petitioners by this Court in several
decisions, including judgment dated 14.12.2021 in US Mishra v. State
(NCT of Delhi)1, and judgment dated 13.03.2024 in Karan Luthra v. State
(NCT of Delhi).2
13. The judgment in Karan Luthra is closest on facts to the present
case, as it also deals with an application for LSR/NOC in respect of land
originally allotted under Section 74(4) of the DLR Act. As in these four
cases, the land in question in Karan Luthra, was also in village Dera
Mandi. The Court relied on the judgment in US Mishra, to hold that there
is no absolute prohibition to transfer of land by a bhumidar, even if the
original allotment was under Section 74(4) of the DLR Act. It was
observed that the grant of bhumidari rights was not subject to any
restrictions or fetters with regard to further transfers, and that
LSRs/NOCs had been issued in the past, permitting transfer of the very
same land. The Court came to the conclusion that the respondents were
not entitled to resist issuance of LSRs/NOCs. A submission based upon
Article 46 of the Constitution, that transfer of land originally allotted to
landless persons were contrary to the purpose of the allotment, was also
2021 SCC OnLine Del 5323 [hereinafter "US Mishra"].
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1774 [hereinafter "Karan Luthra"].
rejected.
14. Further, it was observed in Karan Luthra, that the provisions of the
DLR Act would be inapplicable to village Dera Mandi following its
urbanisation, under a notification dated 20.11.2019 issued under Section
507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Reliance was
placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v.
Narain Singh3.
15. Having regard to these findings, the writ petition was allowed and
the respondents were directed to issue the requisite LSR/NOC.
16. The cases of the present petitioners are substantially similar. The
current owners have acquired the lands in question pursuant to registered
sale deeds. In each case, there have been three prior transfers from the
original allottees, culminating in the current ownership. The relevant
transactions are tabulated as follows, in a chart handed over by Mr.
Singh, the factual details whereof are not disputed:
"Writ No. Detail of 1st Sale 2nd Sale 3rd Sale
Bhumidari of
the 1st owners
WPC No. The 1st owners in Vide Sale Vide Sale Vide Sale
14604/2023 all the writ Deed dated Deed dated Deed dated
petitions were 09.06.1989 30.09.1993 04.08.1995
granted M/s. Arenja M/s. Arenja M/s. Arenja
Bhumidari rights Enterprises Enterprises Enterprises
under Section Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. sold Pvt. Ltd. sold
74(4) of the DLR purchased 19 12 Bigha 11 the land to
Act through a Bigha 09 Biswa of land the Petitioner
Common Biswa of land in Mustatil No. 1, Vinod
Judicial Order in Khasra No. 61, Killa Gugnani.
dated Nos. 61/9 (4- No. 6 (1-09),
(2023) 19 SCC 535.
WPC No. 31.01.1986 16), 61/7 (4-
7 (4-16), 8 (4- LSR/NOC
14609/2023 passed in Case 16), 61/6 (4-
16) & 9 (1- No. 8960
No. 293/RS/86 16) & 61/8
10) Village dated
whereafter their (4-16) from
Dera Mandi 14.07.1995
names were also Bhumidars.
to Sh. Anil granted by
updated in Dhingra and the
revenue records After sale Smt. Rita Respondent
as name of M/s. Dhingra. for the Sale
"Bhumidars". Arenja Deed dated
Enterprises 04.08.1995.
The grant of Pvt. Ltd.
Bhumidari mutated in
Rights was the Khatoni.
without any
WPC No. restriction or 13 Bigha 6 Vide Sale Vide Sale
8787/2025 prohibition on Biswa of land Deed dated Deed dated
sale or transfer in Khasra 02.09.1993 09.04.2010.
of the land. No. 33/16 (4- M/s. Arenja P. Mahitha
12), 17 (9- Enterprises Sreedharan
16), 34/20 (3- sold 12 Bigha sold the land
14) was 13 Biswa of to the
purchased by land in Petitioner
M/s. Arenja Khasra No. No.1,
Enterprises 33/16 (4-16), Tangent Agro
Pvt. Ltd and 17 (4-16), Ltd.
its name was 34/20 Mins.
duly mutated (3-01) to Mr. The Sale
in the P. Mahitha Deed was
Khatoni. Sreedharan. accepted for
the
LSR/NOC registration
No. 964 without
dated calling for
05.01.1993 LSR/NOC.
granted by
the
Respondent
for the Sale
Deed dated
02.09.1993.
WPC No. 14 Bigha 8 Vide Sale Vide Sale
9289/2025: Biswa of land Deed dated Deed dated
in Mustatil 16.01.1996 18.11.2010
No. 33, M/s. Arenja Sh. Sanjeev
Khasra No. Enterprises Lamba sold
24 (4-16), 25 sold 12 Bigha 12 Bigha of
(4-16) & of land in said land to
Mustatil No. Mustatil No. the Petitioner
34, Khasra 33, Khasra No.1, M/s.
No. 21 (4- No. 24 (4-16), Prabhutav
16), Village 25 (4-11) & Estate Pvt.
Dera Mandi Mustatil No. Ltd.
was 34, Khasra
purchased by No. 21 (2-13) LSR/NOC
M/s. Arenja to Sh. SanjeevNo. 3732
Enterprises Lamba. dated
Pvt. Ltd. and 24.09.2010
its name was LSR/NOC granted by
duly mutated No. 7673 the
in the dated Respondent
Khatoni. 28.12.1995 for the Sale
granted by Deed dated
the 18.11.2010."4
Respondent
for the Sale
Deed dated
16.01.1996.
17. It is evident from the above that, in each case, there have been prior
transactions in respect of the same land, for which LSRs/NOCs were
issued by the respondents5, or were registered without LSRs/NOCs6. The
position now taken, that land originally allotted under Section 74(4) of
the DLR Act cannot be transferred, is inconsistent with sale deeds having
been registered in the past upon issuance of LSRs/NOCs by the
Emphasis supplied.
Sale Deed dated 04.08.1995 [third sale in W.P.(C) 14604/2023 and W.P.(C) 14609/2023], Sale Deed
dated 02.09.1993 [second sale deed in W.P.(C) 8787/2025] and Sale Deeds dated 16.01.1996 and
18.11.2010 [second and third sale deeds in W.P.(C) 9289/2025].
Sale Deed dated 09.04.2010 in W.P.(C) 8787/2025.
concerned authorities, or accepted for registration without any LSR/NOC.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents have not placed any
documents on record to suggest that the original allotments to the
bhumidars under Section 74(4) of the DLR Act, in these cases, were
subject to restrictions or fetters. To this extent also, the situation is similar
to the judgments cited by Mr. Singh.
19. The only distinction, as submitted by Mr. Pathak, pertains to
W.P.(C) 8787/2025, where the records of the revenue authorities indicate
that an objection to the transfer was lodged with the concerned
authorities, although details of the objection are not currently available. In
any event, the final order of rejection of the NOC does not refer to any
objection, but only to Section 74(4) of the DLR Act. Likewise, in a
written submission dated 07.07.2025 by the Tehsildar, which has been
handed over to the Court and taken on record, no such point has been
taken. It only contends that the NOC/LSR was not recommended based
on reports by the Patwari and the Naib Tehsildar, stating that the
aforesaid land falls under Section 74(4) of the DLR Act. No other
contention, therefore, requires adjudication.
20. Although Mr. Pathak submits that the further transfer of land
originally allotted to landless persons, under Section 74(4) of the DLR
Act, is inconsistent with the objective of the allotment, I am unable to
agree. Such a contention has been rejected, both in US Mishra and Karan
Luthra, in the absence of a statutory fetter or restriction imposed at the
time of allotment.
21. Mr. Jha also states, upon instructions, that no acquisition
proceedings are pending in respect of the lands in question.
22. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner's claims
are fully covered by the aforesaid judgments, of which Karan Luthra
deals with the very same village.
23. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents
are directed to issue the required LSRs/NOCs to the petitioners within a
period of two weeks.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 9, 2025
UK/sd/
