[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Shrimati Tej Kaur vs Government Of The National Capital ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4829/2023
Date of Decision: 23.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRIMATI TEJ KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Devraj Singh, Advocate.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for
GNCTD.
Mr. Asheesh Kumar Meena, Adv. for
IFCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for directions to respondent no. 2- Flood Control
Department not to take forcible possession of the petitioner's property. A
further prayer for directions to respondent no. 2 to permit the petitioner to
raise a building on the land in question is also made.
2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, she purchased the land in
question vide Sale Deed dated 07.07.1971. However, the petitioner was
served restrainment order dated 14.02.2023 by respondent no. 4- Sub
Divisional Magistrate, whereby, it was alleged that a complaint was received
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:30.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:22:56 KUMAR KAURAV
regarding unauthorised construction in the land in question. The petitioner
was further restrained from undertaking any further unauthorised
construction and directed to appear before the authority, failing which,
demolition orders would be passed. The petitioner claims to have replied to
the said order on 17.02.2023. However, on 03.03.2023, officials of
respondent no. 2 are stated to have arrived at the property in question
without serving any notice on the petitioner and demolished a part of the
building therein.
3. The petitioner contends that the land in question falls within Khasra
no. 31/2017 and is owned by the petitioner, therefore, the same has wrongly
been demolished and the petitioner is entitled to the necessary reliefs as
prayed in the petition.
4. The respondents, however, in their counter affidavit, take the position
that the land in question falls within Khasra no.31/17/1, which is part of
larger Khasra no.31/17. According to the respondents, the land in question
has been acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 2013 and the petitioner does not have any right therein.
5. On perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court finds
the present lis requires determination of the Khasra No. applicable to the
land in question, and whether the petitioner is its owner. These questions
will have to be gone into by the Court of competent jurisdiction after
allowing the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in that
respect. The aforesaid exercise may not be appropriately conducted by the
Writ Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss)
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:30.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:22:56 KUMAR KAURAV
Binapani Dei and Ors.,1 has held as under:
"6. It was the case of the first respondent in her petition before the High
Court that the State had arbitrarily fixed her date of birth as April 16,
1907, and on that basis had declared her superannuated before she
attained the age of 58 years. On behalf of the State it was denied that the
true date of birth of the first respondent was April 10, 1910, and that the
authorities of the State had arbitrarily and maliciously chosen to refix
her date of birth. Under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court is
not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised
by the petition. Where an enquiry into complicated questions of fact
arises in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the right
of an aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined, the
High Court may in appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry
and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one
of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case the
question in dispute was about the regularity of the enquiry and the High
Court was apparently of the view that the question whether the State
acted arbitrarily did not raise any question of investigation into
complicated issues of fact. No interference with the exercise of the
discretion of the High Court is therefore called for."
7. In view thereof, having considered all the facts and circumstances, the
petition stands disposed of. Liberty, however, is reserved in favour of the
petitioner to take an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 23, 2026/P
1967 SCC OnLine SC 15
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:30.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:22:56 KUMAR KAURAV
