Harpal Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
Date of decision:27 October, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010478892026
+ LPA 816/2026 & CM APPL. 68823/2026, CM APPL.

68824/2026


HARPAL SINGH
S/O LATE SH. TEK CHAND
R/O RZ/34, KH.NO. 94,
VPO SAIYED GAON, SAIYED NANGLOI,
DELHI – 110087
...APPELLANT
Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Ms. Bhawana,
Mr. Aviral Jain and Mr.
Roopanshu Malik, Advocates

Versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
TH
17 FLOOR, CIVIC CENTER,
MINTO ROAD, DELHI – 110002
…RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Srijan Sinha, Standing
Counsel for MCD with Mr.
Rishi Chouksey and Ms. Surbhi
Jain, Advocates



CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY SHARMA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, ACJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
10:06:54
LPA 816/2026 Page 1 of 7

1. The prayer in the present letters patent appeal, which is
preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, reads thus:-
“(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated
28.09.2026 passed by Ld. Single Judge in WP (C) NO.
14405/2026 titled as “Harpal vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi” and;
(b) To quash and set aside vacation notice dated
31.08.2026 served by Assistant Engineer (Building-II),
Rohini Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi upon the
property of the Appellant Ad measuring 100 Sq. Yds.
comprised in Khasra no. RZ-34 comprising of Khasra
No.94 at Village Saiyed, Nangloi Saiyed, Delhi-
110087;”
th
2. Vide impugned order dated 28 September, 2026, while
deciding the Writ Petition (C) No. 14405/2026 preferred by the
present appellant, the learned Single Judge was conscious of the
st
Order/Vacation Notice dated 31 August, 2026 passed by the
respondent-MCD, which was challenged in the W.P.(C) No.
14405/2026 in respect of the property of the present appellant/original
petitioner admeasuring 100 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No. 94 at
Village Saiyed, Nangloi Saiyed, Delhi – 110087.
3. Amongst other, the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant are that the address of the appellant, as mentioned in
the earlier round of litigation viz. W.P.(C) 9594 of 2024, wherein he
was impleaded as respondent no.3, was incorrect. It is further urged
that, in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., W.P.(C) 9594/2024,
particularly in paragraph 6 of the order, the issues qua the rights,
contentions and legal remedies of the appellant herein/respondent no.
3 therein were kept open.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
10:06:54
LPA 816/2026 Page 2 of 7

th
4. In compliance of Order dated 19 February, 2026, MCD issued
st
an Order/Vacation Notice dated 31 August, 2026 under Section 349
of the DMC Act, whereby vacation of the premises in respect of
P.No.RZ-19/A, Near Valmiki Mandir, Sayed Gaon, Syed Nangloi,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi and behind RZ-19, Near Valmiki Mandir,
Nangloi Sayed, Paschim Vihar, Delhi was directed to be done within
48 hours . In such an eventuality, he was left with either the option of
preferring an appeal before the MCD Tribunal or that of filing a writ
petition before this Court. The appellant preferred an appeal no.
837/2026 before the ATMCD which was dismissed vide Order dated
th
16 September, 2026 for want of jurisdiction.
5. It is urged that, in such an eventuality, the appellant had taken
recourse to filing a writ petition before this Court, which was
dismissed vide the impugned order. It is urged that the impugned
order records facts contrary to the factual matrix that was narrated in
the writ petition and the documentary evidence that was produced.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
appellant was denied an opportunity to challenge the Joint Inspection
th th
Report and Status Report dated 07 November, 2025 and 16
February, 2026 respectively. As such, he would urge that the property
of the appellant was purchased by his father from one Shri Kubul
Singh way back in 2003. It is urged that they have been occupying the
property in question from around three decades. It is urged that there
stands an old house and the petitioner has not been carrying out any
fresh construction on the same thereby not encroaching upon any
existing or pre-existing road.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
10:06:54
LPA 816/2026 Page 3 of 7

6. In such an eventuality, it is urged that the order impugned
passed by the learned Single Judge is not maintainable or sustainable
in law.

7. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the
MCD would urge that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
the earlier round of litigation is quite clear. According to him, before
th
the passing of the order dated 19 February, 2026, in W.P.(C)
9594/2026, a round of interim measures was taken viz. inspection of
the property, drawing of status reports, inspection reports, etc. It is
urged that the appellant is unable to demonstrate that he is the lawful
owner and occupier of the property in question. In such an
eventuality, it is urged that the order of the learned Single Judge dated
th
19 February, 2026, which has attained finality and has not been
questioned by the appellant, would lead to the only conclusion drawn
by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated
th
28 September, 2026. As such, he has sought dismissal of the present
letters patent appeal.
8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions.
9. The fact remains that the property in question through the
SANAD issued by the Government of India-Ministry of
Rehabilitation-Delhi Administration, in exercise of the powers under
Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “The Displaced
Persons Act of 1954” ) , was transferred to Shri Kanwal Singh, Kubul
Singh and Kehar Singh, sons of Smt. Rajo, widow of Hari Singh and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
10:06:54
LPA 816/2026 Page 4 of 7

Shri Randhir Singh s/o Shri Maya Ram of Nangloi Syed.
10. It is this property in which the appellant is claiming interest.
11. The fact remains that the property allotted through the Sanad
th
dated 14 April, 1959 was never divided amongst the original
allottees namely Shri Kanwal Singh, Shri Kubul Singh, Shri Kehar
Singh & Shri Randhir Singh. Though it is urged by the appellant that
his father allegedly bought the property from Mr. Kubul Singh, one of
the co-allottees, title deed to that effect is not produced. We are unable
to accept this contention of the appellant as to how a particular part of
the property, allotted through the Sanad to the original allottees, stood
transferred to the appellant’s father by an individual allottee, given the
fact that the property was never divided by metes and bounds.
12. Additionally, in the case in hand, there is no Deed of Transfer
or any other registered instrument that has been produced on record to
infer that the property vests in favour of the appellant. As such, it is
difficult to infer as to which part of the property stood vested in
favour of the father of appellant by virtue of the alleged transfer by
Shri Kubul Singh, who was a co-allottee.
13. Apart from the above, the fact remains that while the W.P.(C)
9594 of 2024 was taken up by this Court, wherein the issue of
encroachment and illegal structures was looked into. Catena of steps
were taken in the matter as could be inferred from the various orders
passed from time to time in the said matter. The learned Single Judge,
after various rounds of hearing in the matter and having regard to the
Status and the Inspection Report, had reached to a conclusion that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
10:06:54
LPA 816/2026 Page 5 of 7

there has been an encroachment on the way/roads shown in the
development plan prepared by the DDA.
14. So as to make the appeal entertainable at the behest of the
appellant, it is necessary for the appellant to establish that he has legal
right in the property, which may be in the form of allottee or that of
being an owner of the property. The appellant has failed to establish
the same before this Court.
15. Such conduct on the part of the appellant has led us to draw the
only conclusion that appellant has been rightly termed as an
encroacher of the property in question.
16. Merely because the issue as regards the right of the appellant
th
was kept open vide the order dated 19 February, 2026 in W.P.(C)
9594/2024, that, by itself, will not lead to drawing a conclusion that
the appellant is the lawful owner and occupier of the property. Apart
from the above, there are no sanctioned maps or authorization from
the competent authority permitting the appellant to carry out
construction on the land in question.
17. Rather, the appellant himself has failed to demonstrate as to
which part of the land allotted to Kubul Singh & his other brothers
and Shri Randhir Singh was purchased by the appellant’s father and is
being occupied by him. The entire appeal, in our opinion, involves not
only disputed questions of fact, but, it is also difficult for us, at this
stage, to infer vesting of any legal right in favour of the appellant qua
the land in question.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
10:06:54
LPA 816/2026 Page 6 of 7

18. In any case, any encroachment carried out on the proposed or
the notified development plan road cannot be regularized under the
provisions of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Special
Provisions) Act, 2011.
19. That being so, the appeal, in our opinion, lacks merit and stands
dismissed.
20. Pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
21. A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this
Court.



NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)





SANJAY SHARMA
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 27, 2026 /pr/gs
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:30.10.2026
10:06:54
LPA 816/2026 Page 7 of 7