Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Private Limited vs The Estate Officer & Ors on 21 July, 2026

July 25, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Private Limited vs The Estate Officer & Ors on 21 July, 2026

$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9062/2026
SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mr.
Parag Tripathi & Mr. Sanjiv
Sen, Senior Advocates along
with Mr. Shaunak Kashyap,
Ms. Mayanka Dhawan, Ms.
Namisha Choudhary, Mr.
Prahlad Balaji and Ms. Jharna
Singh, Advocates.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajyog, Senior
Advocate along with Mr.
Vikram Kalra and Ms. Ankita,
Advocates for Residents
Welfare Association, Sujan
Singh Park (North).
versus

THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC
along with Mr. Umar Hashmi,
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Ms. Iqra
Shiekh, Ms. Deepika Kalra, Ms.
Venni Kakkar and Mr. Nishant
Bahuguna, Advocates along
with Mr. Kunal Bhashkar, Dy.
L&DO.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
ORDER

% 21.07.2026

This is a digitally signed order.

SPONSORED

1. The captioned Application, being CM APPL. 44867/2026, has
been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
read with Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 19502
seeking the advancement, preponement and final hearing and disposal
of the above-captioned Petition being, W.P.(C) 9062/2026, in order to
ensure that the same is not rendered infructuous by “the final orders of
eviction to be passed by the Estate Officer on 21.07.2026 as this is
date fixed by the Estate Officer for passing final orders”.

2. The captioned Application, being CM APPL. 44868/2026, has
been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking ad-
interim stay of the operation of Notice bearing No. ESO/11-
3(3)/2026/75 dated 11.06.20263 as well as of the proceedings before
the learned Estate Officer/Respondent No. 1, on the basis of
developments subsequent to the Order dated 09.07.2026, in respect of
the premises measuring 7.58 acres which is known as Sujan Singh
Park (North), New Delhi4, including the proceedings listed on
21.07.2026.

3. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner submits that the proceedings before the learned
Estate Officer have, to say the least, been unsatisfactory. He, while
relying upon the submissions as made in the application, submits that
it appeared that the learned Estate Officer was almost operating as a
mouthpiece of the officers of the Land and Development Office5

1
CPC
2
Constitution
3
Impugned Notice
4
Subject Property
5
L&DO

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31
who were present during the proceedings. He further refers to the
averments as made in the applications to submit that the learned
Senior Counsel who was appearing on behalf of the
Applicant/Petitioner was not permitted to advance submissions and
the entire process was conducted in the most unsatisfactory manner
and this is one of the primary reasons for which an adjournment of the
proceedings before the learned Estate Officer is sought.

4. He, thereafter, while continuing to draw support from the
submissions recorded hereinbefore, submits that there is a dire need to
interdict the proceedings that are continuing before the learned Estate
Officer since the same are manifestly without jurisdiction. He seeks to
rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaikhosrou
(Chick) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India6 and relevant paragraphs of
which read as under:

“22. It is with these background facts which began from 1-3-
1920 and ended with the order of this Court passed on 4-8-1998
[Union of India v. P.T. Anklesaria, (2014) 14 SCC 204, 211
(footnote 6)] , Respondent 2, Estate Officer issued a notice on 31-
7-2001 under sub-section (1) and clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (2) of
Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short “the PP Act“) to the appellants.
The present appeal is concerned with the legality and correctness
of this notice.

*****
27.3. His third submission was that from the facts narrated
above, it is clear that there does exist a “bona fide dispute” between
the appellants and the Union of India (Respondent 1) in relation to
the suit property as to who is its real owner — the appellants or the
Union of India. According to the learned counsel, in a situation
where there arises a bona fide dispute between the two rival
claimants over a property about their ownership such as the one
which has arisen in the case at hand, the remedy of the parties lies
in filing a civil suit in the civil court and seek a declaration of their
ownership over the property in accordance with law but not to take
recourse to any summary remedy to evict a person, such as the one

6
(2019) 20 SCC 705

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31
done by the respondents under the PP Act against the appellants
only because one of the rival claimants i.e. Respondent 1 happens
to be the Union of India.

****

30. It was his submission that having regard to the previous
factual history, it does not take away the jurisdiction of the Estate
Officer under the PP Act to issue notice under Section 4 of the PP
Act and since the suit property belonged to the Union of India, a
notice under Section 4 of the PP Act could always be issued by
Respondent 2 and in such a situation, the remedy of the appellants
would be to submit to the authority of the Estate Officer and file
reply to enable the Estate Officer to proceed with the matter on
merits and pass appropriate order.

31. In other words, his submission was that the Estate Officer
possesses the jurisdiction to issue notice in question and also
possesses a jurisdiction to hold an inquiry under the Act in relation
to the disputes sought to be raised by the appellants and therefore
the appellants should have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Estate Officer rather than to pursue the extraordinary remedy of
filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is these submissions, which the learned Additional
Solicitor General elaborated while opposing the appeal.

****

36. It is this issue, which was extensively dealt with in the
context of civil law as also the special laws, which provides for
taking recourse to the summary remedy by the State to take
possession of the State land from its occupants. The learned Judge
A.P. Sen, J. speaking for the Bench in his inimitable style of
writing answered the question in paras 86-87 as under: (Express
Newspaper case [Express Newspapers (P) Ltd.v. Union of India,
(1986) 1 SCC 133] , SCC p. 202)
“86. The Express Buildings constructed by Express
Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. with the sanction of the lessor i.e.
the Union of India, Ministry of Works and Housing on
Plot Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg demised on
perpetual lease by registered lease deed dated 17-3-1958
can, by no process of reasoning, be regarded as public
premises belonging to the Central Government under
Section 2(e). That being so, there is no question of the
lessor applying for eviction of Express Newspapers Pvt.
Ltd. under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 nor has the Estate
Officer any authority or jurisdiction to direct their eviction
under sub-section (2) thereof by summary process. Due
process of law in a case like the present necessarily
implies the filing of suit by the lessor i.e. the Union of
India, Ministry of Works & Housing for the enforcement

This is a digitally signed order.

87. Nothing stated here should be construed to mean
that the Government has not the power to take recourse to
the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 where admittedly
there is unauthorised construction by a lessee or by any
other person on government land which is public premises
within the meaning of Section 2(e) and such person is in
unauthorised occupation thereof.”

37. The other two learned Judges, namely, E.S. Venkataramiah
and R.B. Mishra, JJ. also concurred with the reasoning and the
conclusion reached by A.P. Sen, J. on this question and
supplemented their individual concurring reasoning in the
following words: (Express Newspaper case [Express Newspapers
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133] , SCC pp. 256 &
258-59, paras 199, 202, 205-06 & 208)
“Venkataramiah, J.–I have gone through the
judgment which my learned brother Justice A.P. Sen has
just now delivered. …

***

202. The rest of the questions relate truly to the civil
rights of the parties flowing from the lease deed. Those
questions cannot be effectively disposed of in this petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution. The questions arising
out of the lease, such as, whether there has been breach of
the covenants under the lease, whether the lease can be
forfeited, whether relief against forfeiture can be granted,
etc. are foreign to the scope of Article 32 of the
Constitution. They cannot be decided just on affidavits.
These are matters which should be tried in a regular civil
proceeding. One should remember that the property
belongs to the Union of India and the rights in it cannot be
bartered away in accordance with the sweet will of an
officer or a Minister or a Lt. Governor but they should be
dealt with in accordance with law. At the same time a
person who has acquired rights in such property cannot
also be deprived of them except in accordance with law.
The stakes in this case are very high for both the parties
and neither of them can take law into his own hands.

***

205. I allow the petitions accordingly. The costs of
Petitioner 1 shall be paid by the Union Government and
the Lt. Governor of Delhi. There shall be no order as to
costs against the other respondents. The other petitioners
shall bear their costs.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31
R.B. Misra, J.–I have perused the judgment prepared
by brother Justice A.P. Sen as also the judgment of brother
Justice E.S. Venkataramiah. While I agree that the
impugned notices threatening re-entry and demolition of
the construction are invalid and have no legal value and
must be quashed for reasons detailed in the two
judgments, which I do not propose to repeat over again. I
am of the view that the other questions involved in the
case are based upon contractual obligations between the
parties. These questions can be satisfactorily and
effectively dealt with in a properly instituted proceeding or
suit and not by a writ petition on the basis of affidavits
which are so discrepant and contradictory in this case.

***

208. I accordingly allow the writ petitions with costs
against the Union Government and the Lt. Governor of
Delhi and quash the impugned notices.”

****

47. The question involved in Express Newspapers
case [Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 1
SCC 133] in relation to remedy of the State qua person in
possession of the land was again considered by a Bench consisting
of three Judges in State of Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi [State of
Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 290] . In that
case also, the question arose as to whether the State Government
can take recourse to a summary remedy of eviction of a person
under the State Revenue laws from the land when such person
raises a bona fide dispute about his right to remain in occupation
over such land. Their Lordship held that in such a situation, the
summary remedy to evict such person under the Act could not be
resorted to.

****

48. S.C. Agrawal, J. speaking for the Bench held in para 6 in
the following words: (Padmavati Devi case [State of
Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 290] , SCC pp.
292-93)
“6. As noticed earlier Section 91 of the Act prescribes
a summary procedure for eviction of a person who is
found to be in unauthorised occupation of government
land. The said provisions cannot be invoked in a case
where the person in occupation raises bona fide dispute
about his right to remain in occupation over the land.
Dealing with similar provisions contained in Section 6 of
the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1945, this
Court in State of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao [State of
A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao, (1982) 2 SCC 134] has
laid down that the summary remedy for eviction provided

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31
by Section 6 of the said Act could be resorted to by the
Government only against persons who are in unauthorised
occupation of any land which is the property of the
Government and if the person in occupation has a bona
fide claim to litigate he could not be ejected save by the
due process of law and that the summary remedy
prescribed by Section 6 was not the kind of legal process
which is suited to an adjudication of complicated
questions of title. For the same reasons, it can be said that
summary remedy available under Section 91 of the Act is
not the legal process which is suited for adjudication of
complicated questions of title where the person sought to
be evicted as an unauthorised occupant makes a bona fide
claim regarding his right to be in possession. In such a
case the proper course is to have the matter adjudicated by
the ordinary courts of law.”

This view was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Zia Khan [State of
U.P. v. Zia Khan, (1998) 8 SCC 483] .

****

49. At this stage we consider apposite to take note of the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court wherein this Court after
examining and upholding the constitutional validity of the PP Act
in Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra
North) Ltd. [Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile Corpn.
(Maharashtra North) Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 182] reiterated the view
taken by this Court in an earlier decision of Northern India
Caterers (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab [Northern India Caterers (P)
Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1581] that the PP Act does
not create any new right of eviction but it only creates a remedy for
a right which already exists under the general law. In other words,
it was held that it only provides a remedy which is speedier than
the remedy of a suit under the general law.”

5. He further submits that since there is a bona fide dispute which
exists as between the parties with respect to the ownership/legal status
of the subject property, resort to the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19717 is not the appropriate manner
in which the proceedings would be required to be conducted.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
also submits that the preliminary objection that was sought to be

7
PPE Act

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31
raised by learned Central Government Standing Counsel8 appearing
on behalf of the Respondent as to the maintainability of the Writ
Petition as against the Show-Cause Notice issued under Section 4 of
the PPE Act is dealt with in Paragraph 59 of the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji v.
Union of India (supra), which reads as under:

“59. Yet, last submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents that the writ petition was not maintainable to challenge
the notice issued under Section 4 of the PP Act has no merit and
deserves rejection. Suffice it to say, firstly, the High Court having
entertained the writ petition and dismissing it on merits, this
objection does not survive for consideration and secondly, in the
light of long line of decisions on this question, a writ petition to
question the legality and correctness of the notice issued under any
Act is no bar in entertaining the writ petition in appropriate case.
The case at hand was regarded as an appropriate case for
entertaining the writ petition (see Siemens Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra [Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12
SCC 33] and Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade
Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8
SCC 1] ).”

7. He further submits that in view of the fact that in the Interim
Order dated 17.06.2026 passed in RSA 108/2026, titled “Sir Sobha
Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India“, and the statement of the
learned CGSC therein to the effect that the proceedings under the PPE
Act would be without reference to or being influenced by the
judgment impugned in the said RSA, there, in fact, remains no
foundational basis for the Notice which is impugned herein. He further
submits that in fact, due to the said statement having been made, the
judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court was not stayed
by this Court.

learned CGSC

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
further submits that the de hors the aspect of the foundational basis of
the Impugned Show-Cause Notice not surviving, Paragraph 8 of the
Impugned Show-Cause Notice refers to a plaint, a copy of which has
not been made available to him, along with other relevant documents.
He, thus, submits that the Show-Cause Notice suffers from various
infirmities, inter alia, the violation of principles of natural justice as
also the lack of foundational basis and there is a dire need that the
proceedings before the learned Estate Officer themselves be
interdicted.

9. Per contra, Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, learned CGSC, submits that he
has no objection to the suggestion made by this Court that the
proceedings before the learned Estate Officer be video-graphed,
considering the serious nature of allegations that have been raised in
the applications filed before this Court.

10. Learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits
that the present Petition lacks jurisdiction and the same is premature.
In support of the said contention, he seeks to rely upon the judgments
of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Delhi Race Club (1940)
Ltd.9, M/s Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development
Authority & Ors.10 and D.D.A. v. Ambitious Gold Nim
Manufacturi11.

11. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the necessary
documents.

2026 SCC OnLine Del 4127
10
2012 SCC OnLine Del 6406
11
LPA 976/2004 : DOD : 21.02.2006

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31

12. At the first instance, this Court is of the opinion that the present
Petition, in view of Paragraph 59 of the judgment passed in
Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India (supra), prima
facie appears to be maintainable.

13. Having prima facie held so, this Court is of the view that in
order to allay any apprehensions with respect to the conduct of
proceedings before the learned Estate Officer, the suggestion of this
Court, which is wholeheartedly accepted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties, be made effective, which is with
respect to the video-graphing of the proceedings before the learned
Estate Officer.

14. This Court clarifies that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on any of the allegations that have been raised and it is only to
allay the apprehension of the Petitioner that this direction has been
passed.

15. Secondly, this Court is of the view that since the Petitioner itself
has sought for a relief that the present objections raised by way of the
Application challenging the jurisdiction of the learned Estate Officer
may be accorded consideration and decided after the parties having
completed all pleadings in this respect and appropriate opportunity
being provided for advancing submissions, this Court directs that the
learned Estate Officer may for this purpose take upon the matter on
05.08.2026 at 04:00 P.M., which date and time have been consented to
by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

16. Parties undertake and consent to ensure that pleadings in respect
of maintainability and jurisdiction of the present disputes being taken
before by the learned Estate Officer shall be filed before the said date,
subsequent to which the learned Estate Officer considers the aspect of

This is a digitally signed order.

17. Needless to say that parties are at liberty to raise such
objections as are available to them under law.

18. The present Applications stand disposed of in the above terms.

W.P.(C) 9062/2026

19. List before the Court on the date already fixed, i.e., 17.08.2026.

20. In the meanwhile, parties are at liberty to complete their
pleadings in the present matter as also to file written submissions, if
any, not exceeding three (3) pages, in support of their various
contentions, at least 48 hours prior to the date fixed.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

JULY 21, 2026/tk/va

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 22:28:31

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Private Limited vs The Estate Officer & Ors on 21 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders