Appellant lacks prima facie locus to challenge land vesting while the settlement decree remains operative.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 15 April 2024 in W.P.(C) No. 15040/2023, by which the learned Single Judge quashed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s conditional order dated 6 January 2020 and final order dated 15 June 2022 vesting land comprised in Khasra Nos. 170/5, 171/2, 171/3, 184/1 and 185/1, Village Gadaipur, in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (“DLR Act”).

The Single Judge held that, because a notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”) had been issued on 20 November 2019, the subsequent DLR Act proceedings were non est, relying on Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Narain Singh.

The land originally belonged to Ms. Ida Nagar, whose sons included the appellant and Ronald Nagar, the predecessor-in-interest of Respondents 1, 5 and 6.

A settlement decree dated 12 April 2012 in CS(OS) No. 666/2008 allotted Farm Land No. 5 to Ronald Nagar; that decree is under challenge in FAO(OS) No. 3/2019.

Ronald Nagar subsequently sold the land to Respondent 1 on 27 December 2019, and Respondent 1 transferred it to Respondents 5 and 6 on 30 August 2024.

The appellant has challenged the first sale deed in CS(OS) No. 236/2021.

During the appeal, the Court had directed the respondents to maintain status quo on 14 August 2024.

Respondents 1, 5 and 6 sought vacation of that order.

The Court also noted that the question concerning the effect of a Section 507(a) DMC Act notification on pending DLR Act proceedings had been referred to a Larger Bench in O.REF. 1/2024.

Whether the order of status quo dated 14 August 2024 should be vacated in view of the appellant’s prima facie lack of locus and the competing claims of the respondents.

Whether the appellant had sufficient locus to challenge the quashing of the SDM’s vesting orders when the land had been allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of Respondents 1, 5 and 6 under a settlement decree that remained operative.

Whether, upon issuance of a notification under Section 507(a) of the DMC Act, pending proceedings under the DLR Act become non est, or continue with the consequences contemplated by Section 150(3) of the DLR Act.

Whether the Union of India was required to be impleaded in the appeal because property vested in the Gaon Sabha would, upon its dissolution, vest in the Central Government under Section 150(3)(a) of the DLR Act.

Section 507(a) of the DMC Act concerns the exclusion of areas from a village following municipal notification.

Section 150(3)(a) of the DLR Act provides that, upon the relevant statutory transition, properties and interests vested in the Gaon Sabha vest in the Central Government; Section 150(3)(d) addresses the continuation or institution of legal proceedings by or against the appropriate successor to the Gaon Sabha.

The Court considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Narain Singh, which held that, after publication of a Section 507(a) notification, the DLR Act ceases to apply and pending proceedings under it become non est; however, the Court noted that Mohinder Singh had not considered Section 150(3) of the DLR Act.

The broader statutory question had therefore been referred to a Larger Bench.

The Court also applied the principle that a party must demonstrate a legally cognisable interest or locus in the subject matter of the proceedings; while the settlement decree dated 12 April 2012 remained operative, the appellant had no prima facie locus concerning the land allotted under that decree.

The Court declined to finally determine the effect of the Section 507(a) notification because that issue was pending before the Larger Bench and the appeal could appropriately be decided after the reference was answered.

Nevertheless, for deciding the interlocutory applications, it examined the parties’ apparent interests.

The settlement decree allotted the disputed Farm Land No. 5 to Ronald Nagar, and although the appellant had challenged that decree in FAO(OS) No. 3/2019, it had neither been varied nor set aside.

Consequently, the appellant did not prima facie possess locus to challenge the vesting dispute concerning land allotted to Ronald Nagar’s successors.

The Court further reasoned that, if the appellant ultimately succeeded in the challenge to the settlement decree, that success alone would not establish his title because the issue of statutory vesting remained distinct; he could claim the land only if the vesting order was also set aside.

The Court also observed that any grievance arising from the quashing of the vesting orders primarily concerned the Gaon Sabha, the State Government or the Central Government, but neither the State Government nor the Central Government had appealed against the Single Judge’s judgment.

Since Section 150(3)(a) contemplated vesting in the Central Government, the Union of India was added as a necessary party.

It held, prima facie, that the appellant lacked locus in the present vesting dispute while the settlement decree allotting the land to Ronald Nagar remained operative.

The Court did not finally decide the legal effect of a Section 507(a) DMC Act notification on pending DLR Act proceedings, leaving that issue to be considered in light of the Larger Bench reference.

The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and the Land and Development Office, was impleaded as Respondents 7 and 8; the appellant was directed to file an amended memo of parties and take steps for issuance of notice.

The appeal was listed for 27 October 2026.