Saroj (Widow Of Khemchand) vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.

$~6 & 100
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 18 May, 2026
st
Uploaded on: 21 May, 2026
~6
+ W.P.(C) 6338/2026
NIRMALA DEVI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vinod Dahiya, Mr. Kuldeep
Antil, Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr.
Ankit Malik, Mr. Bhaskar
Dongwal, Mr. Dhruv Khurana
and Ms. Shivangi Saraswat,
Advs.
versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC
(HLG/L&BD/GNCTD/UOI/LA
C), Mr. Sameer Vashisht SC
(C), Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Singh,
Special Counsel, Mr. Amar
Nath Saini, Mr. Saaurabh
Malhotra, Ms. K. Kaomudi
Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Miss
Joohu Kumari, Mr. Naman, Mr.
Kushagra Dixit, Mr. Amit
Gupta, Ms. Harshita Nathani,
Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr.
R.V. Prabhat, Mr. Shubham
Sharma, Jayati, Advocates with
Mr. S. S. Parihar, DM (CN) &
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, ADM (CN),
Delhi, Harpinder Singh EE
PWD and Roop Singh Meena
AE PWD for R1 to R3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 1 of 11

Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Ms.
Shagun Sabharwal, Ms.
Laqshyaa Saluja, Ms. Anamika
Tyagi, with Mr. Sourabh, Mam
Avanti Kitey, Mr. Anant (DDA
officials) for R4.
Mr. Aaryaman Vachher, Adv.
for GNCTD.
Mr. Rajbir Singh Ruhil, Adv.
~100
+ W.P.(C) 1784/2026
SAROJ (WIDOW OF KHEMCHAND) .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Surat Singh & Mr. Tejaswin
Suri, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC
(HLG/L&BD/GNCTD/UOI/LA
C), Mr. Sameer Vashisht SC
(C), Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Singh,
Special Counsel , Mr. Amar
Nath Saini, Mr. Saaurabh
Malhotra, Ms. K. Kaomudi
Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Miss
Joohu Kumari, Mr. Kushagra
Dixit, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V.
Prabhat, Mr. Shubham Sharma,
Ms. Harshita Nathani, Mr. Yash
Wardhan Sharma, Ms. Jayati,
Advs. with Mr. S. S. Parihar,
DM (CN) & Mr. Rajiv Ranjan,
ADM (CN), Delhi, Harpinder
Singh, EE PWD and Roop
Singh Meena, AE PWD for R1
to R3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 2 of 11

Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC
with Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar
and Ms. Tooba Khan and Mr.
Naman, Advs. for R3.
Mr. Aaryaman Vachher, Adv.
for GNCTD.
Mr. Rajbir Singh Ruhil, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 33795/2026 in W.P.(C) 1784/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application
is disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 227/2026, CM APPL. 33796/2026, CM APPL.
33797/2026 in W.P.(C) 1784/2026
3. The present review petition has been filed by the Petitioner under
Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil
th
Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the impugned judgment dated 6
April, 2026.
4. Vide the impugned judgment dated 6th April, 2026 in W.P.(C) No.
1784/2026 , this Court had issued detailed directions in respect of the
expansion of the Road No. 320, Shalimar Bagh, Village Haiderpur, Delhi
(hereinafter, ‘Road No. 320’) .
5. The Petitioner in the said petition was the special power of attorney
holder of 98 occupants/residents/owners (hereinafter, ‘the occupants’) of
the land in Khasra No. 12(min) and 13(min) of Village Haiderpur,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 3 of 11

Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, wherein the concerned authorities intend to
expand Road No. 320 to a 30-metre wide road.
6. The matter was heard from time to time in great detail. Thereafter,
the judgment dated 6th April, 2026 was passed after recording the
submissions made on behalf of all the parties.
7. Pursuant thereto, the present review petition has been filed.
8. Dr. Surat Singh, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has made
submissions on behalf of the review applicants, who were the original
Petitioners in this petition. The submissions are two-fold:
(i) A Gazette notification dated 8th April, 2026 was issued
seeking to regularize Shalimar Bagh village itself and, therefore,
the occupants can no longer be treated as unauthorized occupants,
as the regularization is on an ‘as is, where is’ basis.
(ii) Further, the Road No. 320 was never intended to be a 30-
metre wide road. It was only to be a collector road and not an
arterial road, as per the Master Plan. In this regard, certain plans
have been relied upon.
9. The Court has considered the matter. The submissions which have
been made in respect of the regularization of the Shalimar Bagh village
have already been recorded in paragraph 23 (i) of the impugned judgment
dated 6th April, 2026.
10. Insofar as the width of the Road No. 320 is concerned, detailed
submissions were made on behalf of both the Petitioner and the
Respondents.
11. Vide the impugned judgement dated 6th April, 2026, the Court had
considered the submissions and had perused the various photographs,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 4 of 11

video footage and maps which were placed on record. The same had
revealed that the Road No. 320 was proceeding in a zig-zag manner and
the expansion of the road was necessary for various developmental
projects in the said area.
12. Moreover, the Court had also noted an important fact with respect
to the title of the occupants in paragraph 44 of the said judgement, which
reads as under:
“44. Further, the chart would also reveal that
most of the occupants claim rights only
through GPAs, which may not even be
registered. In most cases, there are no sale
deeds and the title in respect of all the
occupants seems to be unestablished. It is
under these circumstances that the Court has
to consider whether the widening of Road No.
320 can be held back or not.”
13. As can be seen from the above extracted paragraph, none of the
Petitioners had any sale deeds or documents of title, which would have
established rights in the land which is now to fall in the area to be utilised
for the expansion of the Road No. 320. Moreover, it is not up to the Court
to decide as to what should be the width of any road. The land is acquired
land, which the Petitioners are occupying and have built tenements.
There is no legal right for the Petitioners which would entitle them to
seek relief against expansion of the road.
14. Vide the judgement of which review is sought, the Court had also
taken note of the fact that there were encroachments by the various
occupants, and under such circumstances, the following directions had
been issued:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 5 of 11

“i) The concerned authorities shall proceed
with the expansion of Road No. 320, in
accordance with the approval of the
UTTIPEC dated 13th January, 2016.
ii) A reasonable time period shall be granted
to the occupants to remove their belongings
and vacate the unauthorised encroachments
near the Road No. 320, so that they are not
unnecessarily inconvenienced. For the said
purpose, the concerned ADM shall interact
with the occupants and fix an outer limit by
which the occupants shall vacate the
properties on the subject land under their
occupation and possession. In any event, this
period shall not be beyond 30th May, 2026.
iii) The GNCTD shall take an appropriate
decision regarding the grant of ex gratia
compensation to be awarded to the
occupants, in accordance with law, as prayed
for by the Petitioner and other occupants, and
the same shall be considered in a sympathetic
manner.
iv) Upon the expiry of the aforesaid period
i.e., 30th May 2026, the Respondents are at
liberty to proceed with the expansion of Road
No. 320 and to remove all the
encroachments/unauthorized constructions.
v) Until the reasonable time to vacate expires
in terms of (ii) above, the Petitioners shall not
be displaced, subject to their cooperation
with the authorities in terms of the present
directions.”
15. Thus, both the submissions made by ld Counsel for the Petitioner
today, i.e., in respect of the regularization of the Shalimar Bagh village
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 6 of 11

and issue pertaining to collector road have already been considered by
th
this Court vide the impugned judgment dated 6 April, 2026. Time has
th
been given to the Petitioners to vacate by 30 May 2026. In fact the
Court is informed that some persons have already vacated after
accepting compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. Some persons have also started
demolishing the encroached portions.
16. Clearly, there is no error apparent on the record which is being
pointed out by the Petitioner, and hence, the review petition is not
tenable.
17. The review petition, along with pending applications, is disposed
of in the said terms.
W.P.(C) 6338/2026
18. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners- Mrs.
Nirmala Devi and Mr. Jitender Singh Gujral under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking directions to the Respondents
to restrain them from effecting eviction and the demolition pursuant to
the judgement dated 6th April, 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1784/2026 .
19. The Petitioners have also challenged the impugned notice dated
4th May, 2026 issued by Lieutenant Governor.
20. Pertinently, both the Petitioners were parties to the W.P.(C) No.
1784/2026 . The same is evident from the list of authorising persons
who had executed special power of attorney in favour of Smt. Saroj
who was the Petitioner therein. The said list is annexed with the special
power of attorney on record in W.P.(C) No. 1784/2026.
21. Mrs. Nirmala Devi’s name appears at serial no. 10 in the list of
authorising persons and Mr. Jitender Singh Gujral appears at serial no.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 7 of 11

71 of the said list. The relevant portion of the said list is set out below:
22. Mr. Dahiya, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the scope
of the present petition is more than W.P.(C) 1784/2026. Ld. Counsel
submits that that the impugned notice dated 4th May, 2026 issued by
District Magistrate, Central North, GNCTD, directing the occupants to
accept the compensation for Rs.3 lakhs and vacate the area by 15th
May, 2026 is beyond what was permitted by this Court, vide judgement
dated 6th April, 2026.
23. In addition, it is submitted by Mr. Dahiya, ld. Counsel for the
Petitioners that the affidavit filed by the Delhi Development Authority
(hereinafter, ‘DDA’) in W.P.(C) 1784/2026 is baseless and misleading.
24. The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of W.P.(C)
1784/2026 would show that the said petition was filed by Smt. Saroj
filed on her behalf as also on behalf of all the other occupants whose
names are mentioned in the list of authorising persons in the special
power of attorney. The Court having dismissed the W.P.(C) 1784/2026 ,
a separate writ petition would not be entertainable.
25. In so far as the impugned notice dated 4th May, 2026 is
concerned, the relevant portion of said notice reads as under:
“[...]
3. Ex-gratia Compensation and License for
Accommodation
3.1 Occupants who are ready to shift
immediately shall be provided a one-time ex-
gratia compensation of Rupees Three Lakh
(Rs. 3,00,000/-) only per family or unit as per
eligibility criteria mentioned in this order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 8 of 11

3.2 Occupants who are unable to shift
elsewhere shall be provided accommodation
on a license basis at Savda Ghevra, Delhi,
strictly in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in the License Agreement
(Annexure B). The monthly license fee shall
be Rs. 21.19 per square foot for a maximum
period of eleven months only. Electricity,
water, maintenance, and other charges shall
be borne by the licensee.
3.3 The above benefits shall be provided only
if the occupant vacates the premises on the
acquired land on or before 15th May, 2026,
and signs the Acceptance Form (Annexure
A).
3.4 Flats shall be provided subject to
availability on a first-come-first-served basis.
DUSIB shall publish the list of available
flats”
26. The operative portion of the directions given in paragraph 51 of
the judgement dated 6th April, 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1784/2026
permitted the Government to take a decision on ex-gratia
compensation. The said directions are as under:
“i) The concerned authorities shall proceed
with the expansion of Road No. 320, in
accordance with the approval of the
UTTIPEC dated 13th January, 2016.
ii) A reasonable time period shall be granted
to the occupants to remove their belongings
and vacate the unauthorised encroachments
near the Road No. 320, so that they are not
unnecessarily inconvenienced. For the said
purpose, the concerned ADM shall interact
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 9 of 11

with the occupants and fix an outer limit by
which the occupants shall vacate the
properties on the subject land under their
occupation and possession. In any event, this
period shall not be beyond 30th May, 2026.
iii) The GNCTD shall take an appropriate
decision regarding the grant of ex gratia
compensation to be awarded to the
occupants, in accordance with law, as
prayed for by the Petitioner and other
occupants, and the same shall be considered
in a sympathetic manner.
iv) Upon the expiry of the aforesaid period
i.e., 30th May 2026, the Respondents are at
liberty to proceed with the expansion of Road
No. 320 and to remove all the
encroachments/unauthorized constructions.
v) Until the reasonable time to vacate expires
in terms of (ii) above, the Petitioners shall not
be displaced, subject to their cooperation
with the authorities in terms of the present
directions.”
27. After having perused both the impugned notice and the operative
directions vide the judgment dated 6th April, 2026, this Court is of the
view that no separate cause of action exists for maintaining a separate
writ petition.
28. In so far as the affidavit of DDA is concerned, the Petitioners are
at liberty to avail of their remedies in accordance with law.
29. At this stage, Mr. Dahiya, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, submits
that a Court Commissioner may be appointed to measure the width of
the Road No. 320.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 10 of 11

30. The same is not required inasmuch as this Court had already
perused the photographs, drone footage as also the maps which were
placed on record on 6th April, 2026.
31. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in these terms.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 18, 2026/b/sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:21.05.2026
18:25:44
W.P.(C) 6338/2026 & W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 11 of 11