[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Smt. Kamla Seth Since Deceased Through ... vs Sh. Pankaj Naresh Agrawal & Anr on 13 April, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~5 & 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th April, 2026
Uploaded on: 16th April, 2026
+ CONT.CAS(C) 660/2025
SMT. KAMLA SETH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HER
LEGAL HEIR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi & Mr. Hargun Singh
Kalra, Advs. (M: 9818610321)
versus
SH. PANKAJ NARESH AGRAWAL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta Standing counsel
MCD.
Mr. Anand Prakash Standing Counsel
MCD alongwith Ms. Varsha Arya and
Mr. Satbeer and Geet Batra, Advs. for
MCD.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak (Standing
Counsel), with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Mr. M. S Akhtar, Ms Joohu Kumari,
Advs.
~6
+ W.P.(C) 5270/2013
KAMLA SETH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi & Mr. Hargun Singh
Kalra, Advs.
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRAE-CUM-LAND
ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (EAST) & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand Prakash Standing Counsel
MCD alongwith Ms. Varsha Arya and
Mr. Satbeer and Geet Batra, Advs. for
MCD.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 660/2025 & W.P.(C) 5270/2013 Page 1 of 9
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:16.04.2026
17:05:07
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak (Standing
Counsel), with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Mr. M. S Akhtar, Ms Joohu Kumari,
Advs. for R-1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, Mr. Ameet
Singh, Ms Jyoti Chaturvedi and Mr.
Tarun Kumar, Advs. for R-5 & 6.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are two matters which arise out of the subject land i.e., Plot no.
16 Khasra no. 465/865/1 at Kailash Nagar, Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
The erstwhile Petitioner- Smt. Kamla Seth was the owner of this plot. The
Petitioner had filed Suit No. 422/04 titled 'Smt. Kamla Seth v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi Th: its
Commissioner' which was rejected by the ld. Civil Judge on the ground that
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 would apply vide order dated 7th February,
2005.
3. The Petitioner had appealed against the said order and the Appellate
Court in RCA No. 36/2005 had allowed the said appeal on 3rd October, 2005.
The suit was decreed by the Appellate court. This was again challenged by
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, 'MCD') by way of RSA
249/06 titled 'MCD v. Kamla Seth' which was dismissed on 2nd September,
2009. In the meantime, an execution petition being Ex. No. 298/08 was filed
to execute the judgment and decree dated 3rd October, 2005.
4. In the judgment dated 2nd September, 2009 in RSA 249/06, the MCD
had given an undertaking to hand over the land in question to the Petitioner
and sought time for the same. The relevant portion of the order dated 2 nd
September, 2009 reads as under:
"14. Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant has
sought some time to hand over the vacant possession of the
suit property to the respondent as a school is being run there
and the students are in the midst of the session for the year
2009-2010.
15. Keeping in mind the fact that studies of the students
would be disrupted, which are likely to adversely affect their
career if immediate possession of the property in suit is
sought to be delivered to the respondent, request is allowed.
The appellant is directed to hand over the vacant
possession of the suit property to the respondent on or
before 30.6.2010."
5. However, the MCD failed to hand over the land in question. This led to
Cont. Cas. (C) No. 312/2011 titled 'Kamla Seth v. KS Mehra MCD v. Ors.'
being filed by the Petitioner. In the said contempt petition, the Court had
recorded the MCD's undertaking to vacate the subject property on 2 nd
September, 2009. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 2 nd September,
2009 are as under:
"14. Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant
has sought some time to hand over the vacant possession
of the suit property to the respondent as a school is
being run there and the students are in the midst of the
session for the year 2009-2010.
15. Keeping in mind the fact that studies of the students
would be disrupted, which are likely to adversely affect
their career if immediate possession of the property in
suit is sought to be delivered to the respondent, request
is allowed. The appellant is directed to hand over the
vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent
on or before 30.6.2010.
16. Under these circumstances, there are no orders as
to costs."
6. The MCD, however, passed a resolution bearing no. 238 on 14 th
November, 2009 in respect of two plots including the Petitioner's plot for
acquisition of the same.
7. The MCD had, thus on the one hand undertaken to vacate the property
but on the other hand, took a decision to commence acquisition proceedings.
Since the MCD had agreed to vacate the property on 30th June, 2010, but failed
to adhere to the said undertaking which was given to the Court on 1 st August,
2011, the Commissioner, MCD was directed to be present. The said order
reads as under:
Reply has not been filed. Learned counsel for the
petitioner points out that learned counsel for the
respondent/MCD on 02.9.2009 had sought time to hand
over vacant possession of the suit property; the
appellant has accordingly been directed to hand over
possession latest by 30.6.2010. Record show that on the
first date before this Court time had been taken by
learned counsel for the respondent to take instructions;
on the second date he had sought time to file reply.
Neither instructions have been taken nor has the reply
been filed. Status report on affidavit be filed in two
weeks. Let Commissioner, MCD also be present in the
Court on the next date of hearing.
Renotify for 21.9.2011."
8. On 21st September, 2011 and on 28th September, 2011 again the
Commissioner, MCD was directed to be present in Court. On 29 th September,
2011, the Commissioner, MCD appeared before the Court and it is recorded
as under:
Mr. K.S. Mehra, Commissioner, MCD, is present.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that the
department is in the process of acquisition of the said
land; and in fact a survey of the said land had
commenced way back on 01.6.2010; he further states
that efforts will be made if the petitioner can be
adequately compensated and the land can be acquired
as the department is of the view that the public purpose
enjoins that the land should be acquired for the running
of the school which is already functioning from the said
property. The petitioner is not present today. Learned
counsel for the petitioner will also take instructions
from his client. The parties will sit together to work out
the possibility in terms of the aforenoted proposal. In
case no settlement is arrived at till the next date the case
shall be heard on its merits.
Renotify for 31.10.2010."
9. As can be seen from the above, the Commissioner, MCD had made a
statement that the MCD is in the process of acquisition of the land but the
Court had directed that an amicable resolution should be attempted. However,
no amicable resolution took place and the MCD, thereafter, went ahead with
the acquisition. This led to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Award was passed acquiring the subject land.
It is this award that is under challenge in the present petition.
10. The Court has heard Mr. Rohit Gandhi, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. Anand Prakash, ld. Counsel appearing for the MCD. Mr. Anand
Prakash, ld. Counsel submits that a full house of the MCD has taken a decision
to acquire this land and a school is running from the said premises.
11. Prima facie, after having seen the chronology of events in this case, it
becomes clear that the MCD took the decision to acquire this land after having
failed to honour the undertaking given to the Court. Thus, at this stage, it
appears that the acquisition would not be bona fide in the opinion of this
Court.
12. Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel, relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court
in State of A.P. & Ors. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739 to argue that
acquisition under such circumstances, cannot be held to be mala fide.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Gandhi, ld. Counsel relies upon the decision in
Gojer Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2013) 16
SCC 660.
14. At this stage, Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel submits that the Petitioner ought
to establish the title of the land in question because there is difference in the
khasra no. between the sale deed and the land which has been acquired. Mr.
Gandhi, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in fact the khasra no. has
been changed by the authorities just before the acquisition in a mala fide
manner.
15. In the opinion of this Court, this is a shocking argument of the LAC to
say the least.
16. Insofar as this issue is concerned, a perusal of the note sheet which is
signed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 9th February, 2012 records
as under:
"It is pertinent to mention that in this land dispute a
contempt petition is pending in the Hon'ble High Court
wherein next date hearing is 23.03.2012 Even prior
thereto, worthy Commissioner of the Corporation has
personally appeared before the Hon'ble Court twice.
Therefore, it is necessary that acquisition, process be
completed with fast speed for disposal of the contempt
petition on the next date of hearing on 23.03.2012."
17. Irrespective of whatever the khasra no. is, the identity of the property
is not in question inasmuch as the MCD has paid rent for almost five decades
to the Petitioner and it was only when the Commissioner, MCD was directed
to be present in Court that the acquisition proceedings itself appear to have
commenced at the request of the MCD. The note sheet above records that the
Commissioner appeared twice before the Court and therefore, there is a need
to complete the acquisition proceedings. This leaves no doubt as to the
identity of the property or its owner.
18. The last pleading filed by the MCD in this case is of 9th January, 2014.
Thereafter, an application has been filed by the MCD some time in 2024. The
overall facts which have emerged is that the Petitioner had obtained an
eviction decree against the MCD in response to which the acquisition has been
initiated and award has been passed.
19. The MCD in the opinion of this Court needs to relook at this matter
inasmuch as the Petitioner who was 83 years old at the time when the present
writ petition was filed has, in fact, passed away and it is her legal heirs who
are now pursuing the present writ petition.
20. Public Authorities are expected to conduct their activities in a manner
which establishes trust and faith of the citizens in them. The MCD being a
tenant in the property ought not be permitted to conduct itself with such high-
handedness. The officials of the MCD, who appear to have commenced the
acquisition proceedings only because the Commissioner, MCD was called in
the Court clearly reflects a conduct which is completely unbecoming of a high
ranking public official.
21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that another
opportunity deserves to be given to the MCD and the authorities running the
MCD currently, to take a fresh look at a matter. The possession of this land
was with the MCD in the capacity as a tenant and not as an acquiring
authority.
22. The MCD may have deposited a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs with the LAC,
however, the market value of this property is much higher. The MCD also
tried to raise a permanent construction qua which a status quo order has been
passed by the predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 26th August,
2013. Thereafter, repairs were permitted vide order dated 31st May, 2024,
however, the grievance of the Petitioner is that under the garb of this order,
the MCD has constructed a permanent structure. The order dated 31st May,
2024 passed by this Court is set out below:
"CM APPL. 34266/2024 (Direction)
1. The respondent/applicant filed the present
application, inter alia, praying as under: -
"a. The applicant/ respondent may kindly be
permitted to carry out repairs/re-roofing of
the six classrooms of the writ property, in the
interest of justice."
2. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits
that urgent orders are required to re-roof the six
classrooms to protect them from ensuing monsoon. It is
further stated that the schools would be closed for
vacation and this would be an opportune time to carry
out the repairs. It is stated that the respondent/ applicant
would not claim any equities on account of carrying out
such repairs.
3. In view of above, we do not consider it apposite to
defer the hearing of the present application to await
representation on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The applicant is permitted to carry out the repair/re-
roofing work, but will not alter the structure of the
building.
5. The application is allowed in above terms."
23. In view of the above, the following directions are issued:
i. The MCD shall file a fresh affidavit by the next date of hearing
after the Commissioner, MCD has taken a re-look at the matter along
with latest photographs of the school which is allegedly functioning
there. The said affidavit shall also mention the number of students in
the school, the classes that are being conducted as also the details of the
affiliation. Details regarding other MCD/GNCTD schools in the
neighbourhood shall also be given.
ii. The school is stated to be in the middle of a busy commercial
area. The Petitioner shall place on record the market value of the
property as on today along with photographs of the property and
surrounding areas by the next date of hearing.
24. This matter shall be taken up as 'Item No. 1' on the next date of hearing.
25. List on 18th May, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 13, 2026
dj/ck
