Sandeep Kaur And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 22 July, 2026

July 28, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Sandeep Kaur And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 22 July, 2026

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                          $~15 to 18
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024
                                    SANDEEP KAUR AND ORS.                               .....Petitioners
                                                     versus
                                    GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS                    .....Respondents
                                                     With
                                    W.P.(C) 2209/2023, W.P.(C) 5126/2023, W.P.(C) 131/2024
                                    For Petitioners: Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma, Mr. Samarth Vikram
                                                     Singh and Mr. Shashwat, Advocates in Item No.
                                                     16.
                                                     Mr. S. Kr. Roshan, Ms. Sanskriti S. and Mr.
                                                     Neelesh Mani Tripathi, Advocates in Item No. 17.
                                    For Respondents: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel (GNCTD) with
                                                     Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for GNCTD in
                                                     Item No. 15 to 18.
                                                     Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil),
                                                     GNCTD in Item No. 17.
                                                     Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for R-6 in Item
                                                     No. 16.
                                                     Ms. Shobhana Takiar, SC with Ms. Chand Chopra
                                                     and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocates for DDA in
                                                     Item Nos. 15 to 17.
                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                                                  ORDER

                          %                                       22.07.2026

                          The Controversy

1. These petitions arise from competing claims over parcels of land
stated to fall within Khasra Nos. 141, 142 and 143 of the revenue estate of
Village Chhatarpur, Delhi. The Petitioners claim protection on the basis of
pattas stated to have been issued by the Gaon Sabha in the year 1985 under
the Twenty Point Programme. The Forest Department, on the other hand,

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 1 of 13

SPONSORED

This is a digitally signed order.

2. Since the factual foundation and the issues arising in these matters
substantially overlap, these writ petitions and the connected contempt
petition are being decided by this common order.

The Claims

3. Anar Devi, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2209/2023, relies upon a Patta
Certificate dated 2nd June, 1985 in respect of Plot No. 676, measuring 100
sq. yards, stated to have been carved out of Khasra No. 142. She alleges that
her structure was partially demolished without notice and seeks a declaration
that the demolition was unlawful, protection against dispossession, and
permission to restore the construction that existed prior to the demolition.

4. Kishan Singh, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5126/2023, seeks parity with
other allottees under the Twenty Point Programme and a declaration that he
is the patta holder of Plot Nos. 686 and 675 in Khasra Nos. 142 and 143.
The Patta Certificate annexed to that petition, however, appears to refer to
Plot No. 687. The description of the land in the prayer clause, the pleadings
and the document relied upon is not consistent. The Petitioner also claims
prolonged residence at the site, although the address disclosed in the
affidavit accompanying the petition is at Ballabgarh, Faridabad.

5. W.P.(C) 131/2024 has been instituted by eight Petitioners claiming
different plots, including Plot Nos. 665, 688, 674, 672, 667, 671 and 689.
The pleadings describe some of these plots as falling collectively within
Khasra Nos. 141, 142 and 143, without identifying the particular khasra in
which each plot is situated. Plot No. 674 is claimed twice, while the Special
Power of Attorney executed by one of the alleged allottees refers instead to

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 2 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

6. Sandeep Kaur, Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.(C) 131/2024, does not rely
upon a patta issued in her own name. She has instituted the proceedings on
the strength of Special Powers of Attorney [“SPAs”] executed by different
persons in October 2023. Those instruments purport, inter alia, to authorise
her to institute proceedings and, in certain cases, to have the property
transferred to herself, her nominee or a third party.

7. On 5th January, 2024, while issuing notice in W.P.(C) 131/2024, this
Court directed the Respondents to verify the Patta Certificates. Having
regard to the assertion that the Petitioners had been occupying the land for
nearly four decades, the Court further directed that no coercive action be
taken against them until the next date of hearing.

8. CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 alleges breach of the aforesaid order. The
Petitioners claim that officials of the Forest Department and the police
visited the site on different dates in January and February 2024, damaged
household articles, obstructed access to the premises, and threatened them
with dispossession.

Submissions

9. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contend that the pattas were
issued under a welfare scheme prior to the forest notifications. It is
submitted that the allotments were never cancelled and that the Petitioners,
or their predecessors, have remained in settled possession for several
decades. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are lawful allottees under
the Twenty Point Programme and not encroachers, and that the subsequent
forest notifications cannot defeat rights which had already accrued in their
favour. Reliance is also placed upon a layout stated to have been prepared

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 3 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
by the Minor Irrigation Department in 1995, depicting 799 or, according to
some Petitioners, 806 residential sites, as well as other governmental records
relied upon to demonstrate long-standing occupation. In W.P.(C.)
2209/2023, reliance is also placed upon an order dated 19 th September,
2011, which, according to the Petitioner, recognised or converted the
leasehold rights into perpetual rights.

10. The Petitioners further contend that the Forest Department could not
have undertaken demolition or dispossession without issuing individual
notices and identifying the particular plots by a lawful demarcation exercise.
They also allege that the Respondents have selectively proceeded against
only some of the allottees under the Twenty Point Programme, while leaving
other similarly situated allottees untouched.

11. Counsel appearing for the Respondents dispute the validity,
subsistence and, in some cases, the authenticity of the documents relied
upon by the Petitioners. It is submitted that the pattas were limited grants
which did not confer ownership and had, in any event, expired by efflux of
time. It is further submitted that no enforceable rights survived after the
forest notifications, no claims were preferred in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 [“Forest Act“] and
the notifications have consequently attained finality. The Respondents also
contend that Government records or identity documents relied upon by the
Petitioners do not confer title over forest land.

12. The Forest Department relies upon the order dated 3 rd November,
1987, passed under Section 160 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 read
with Rule 168 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954, by which land
including Khasra Nos. 141, 142 and 143 was reserved for “the maintenance

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 4 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
and development of forests and trees or any other work of public utility”.
Reliance is also placed upon the notification dated 24 th May, 1994 issued
under Section 4 of the Forest Act, as well as decisions of the Supreme Court
and the National Green Tribunal emphasising protection of forest land and
removal of encroachments. The Respondents further dispute the Petitioners’
possession over the land and contend that the land continues to remain in the
possession of the Forest Department.

13. During the hearing, counsel for the Respondents also placed before
the Court an order dated 1st June, 2026 passed by the Forest Settlement
Officer [“FSO”] in Smt. Billo and 32 Others v. Deputy Conservator of
Forest, South1. The applicants therein had also claimed allotments made in
1985 under the Twenty Point Programme over land falling in Khasra Nos.
133, 142 and 143. Their claims for verification and exclusion of the land
from the forest record were dismissed.

Analysis

14. The first question is whether the Petitioners have established a
subsisting right capable of being protected in the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The answer must be in the negative.

15. The pattas produced before the Court do not confer ownership. They
describe the allottee as an “Assami” and stipulate that the land shall be “held
on lease for the period of fifteen years”. The instruments further prohibit
sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or any other mode of parting with possession.
A right of “re-entry” is reserved in favour of the Gaon Sabha in the event of
breach of the statutory provisions or the conditions of allotment.

16. Thus, even assuming the pattas to be genuine, the grants were, on

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 5 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
their express terms, limited in duration. The fifteen-year period would have
expired around the year 2000. Although, in W.P.(C) 131/2024, reliance is
placed upon an alleged order dated 19th September, 2011 to contend that the
leasehold rights stood converted into perpetual rights, the said order has not
been placed on record. The Respondents have disputed the said averment in
their Counter Affidavit, and no Rejoinder has been filed thereto. In the
absence of the alleged order or any other material substantiating the plea,
this Court is unable to accept that contention.

17. The submission that the pattas were never cancelled does not carry the
Petitioners’ case any further. A grant made for a defined period does not
become perpetual merely because a separate order of cancellation was not
passed. The Petitioners have failed to establish any legal foundation on
which the rights can be said to have survived beyond the stipulated term.

18. The claims founded upon the SPAs suffer from an additional
infirmity. A power of attorney is an instrument of agency. It does not, by
itself, convey title or create any interest in immovable property. More
importantly, an attorney cannot acquire or assert a right greater than that
possessed by the principal. Clauses in the SPAs authorising transfer to the
attorney, a nominee or a third party cannot override the express prohibition
against transfer contained in the original pattas.

19. There are also material uncertainties concerning the identity of the
properties. In W.P.(C) 5126/2023, the plots mentioned in the prayer clause
do not correspond with the plot appearing in the Patta Certificate. In
W.P.(C) 131/2024, one plot is claimed twice, another claim is supported by
an instrument referring to a different plot number, and several plots are

1
Case No. 14/2026 to 25/2026 & 27/2026 to 47/2026.

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 6 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
stated to fall generally within Khasra Nos. 141, 142 and 143, without any
precise correlation. The basis on which Sandeep Kaur claims rights over the
property is also not clearly pleaded or established.

20. These are not minor discrepancies capable of being overlooked in
proceedings under Article 226. Their resolution would require comparison
of the original allotment records, the relevant revenue records, the layout
relied upon by the Petitioners, the Total Station Method survey, the forest
demarcation records and the position at site. The Court would also be
required to determine questions relating to succession, possession, the
authenticity of the documents and the effect of the conditions contained in
each individual grant.

21. Such questions cannot appropriately be resolved in proceedings under
Article 226. In Sohan Lal v. Union of India & Anr.2, the Supreme Court
declined to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property
in dispute, observing that doing so would mean entering into “a field of
investigation which is more appropriate for a civil court in a properly
constituted suit”. The Court further observed that where the relief sought
would, in substance, require a declaration of title and recovery of
possession, it would, in effect, amount to passing a decree in favour of one
party. The same principle applies here, where the relief sought requires
substantial adjudication of rival claims over land claimed by the State to
form part of the forest area.

22. The statutory scheme cannot also be ignored. Chapter II of the Forest
Act prescribes a complete procedure for the constitution of a reserved forest.
Once the State Government decides to constitute any land as a reserved

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 7 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
forest, it is required to issue a notification under Section 4 specifying, as
nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the land and appointing a FSO
“to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights
alleged to exist” in or over such land or the forest produce thereof. Upon
such notification, the FSO is required to issue a proclamation inviting
claims, conduct an inquiry into the claims preferred as well as rights
ascertainable from the Government records, and determine the claims in the
manner provided under the Act. The Act, thus, establishes a specialised
statutory mechanism for the investigation and determination of competing
claims before a notification declaring the forest to be reserved is issued.

23. In State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors.3, the
Supreme Court, while examining the scheme of Chapter II of the Forest Act,
held that it constitutes a complete code for the determination of rights
claimed over land proposed to be constituted as a reserved forest. Noting
that the FSO exercises powers of a civil court and that his orders are subject
to appeal and revision under the Act, the Court held that claims relating to
such land are required to be pursued within the statutory framework of the
Forest Act and that, upon completion of the statutory process, the resultant
notification attains finality in accordance with the Act.

24. In the present case, the Respondents rely upon the notification dated
24th May, 1994 issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act and dispute the
Petitioners’ claim that the plots in question fall outside the notified forest
area. The Petitioners, on the other hand, assert pre-existing rights under the
pattas issued in 1985. Resolution of these competing claims would

2
(1957) 1 SCC 439.

(1996) 5 SCC 194.

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 8 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
necessarily require examination of the statutory proceedings under the
Forest Act, the extent and location of the notified forest area, and the rival
claims regarding the identity and location of the plots in question.

25. In these circumstances, the Court is unable to identify with certainty
the land in respect of which relief is sought. The imprecision in the
Petitioners’ own pleadings, coupled with the disputes concerning the
location and identity of the land claimed, precludes the grant of any plot-
specific relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

26. The layout attributed to the Minor Irrigation Department does not
alter this conclusion. At best, it may indicate that a plotted layout existed at
a particular point in time. It does not establish that each Petitioner was
lawfully allotted the plot now claimed, the plot lies at the location asserted,
or the limited tenure created in 1985 continues to subsist. Likewise, a
response furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicating that
no record of cancellation is available does not amount to an adjudication of
title or subsisting rights.

27. Long possession, even if asserted over several decades, cannot by
itself furnish a basis for granting relief in respect of forest or other public
land. In Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.4, the Supreme Court
observed that long duration of unauthorised occupation or the expenditure
incurred in raising constructions cannot justify condoning or regularising
illegal occupation of public land. This Court is conscious that the Petitioners
do not assert a case of unauthorised occupation but claim to trace their rights
to pattas issued under the Twenty Point Programme. Nevertheless, once the
term of the grants has expired and no enforceable right has been established,

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 9 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

28. During the pendency of these petitions, the FSO, by order dated 1st
June, 2026 in Smt. Billo, adjudicated claims asserted by other persons
claiming rights under Twenty Point Programme allotments in respect of land
falling in the same khasras. The present Petitioners were not parties to those
proceedings and, therefore, the said order neither binds them nor has this
Court relied upon the findings recorded therein for deciding the merits of
their claims. At the same time, the fact that such claims have been
adjudicated by the FSO reinforces the conclusion that disputes concerning
the validity of allotments, pre-existing rights, forest boundaries and the
effect of the statutory notifications are matters falling within the statutory
mechanism under the Forest Act and cannot appropriately be adjudicated for
the first time in these writ petitions.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, the Petitioners have failed to establish any
present and enforceable right entitling them to the reliefs claimed in these
writ petitions. Nothing observed in this order shall, however, be construed as
returning any conclusive finding on the authenticity of the pattas, the
validity of the original allotments or the precise identity and boundaries of
the plots claimed by the Petitioners.

The Contempt Petition

30. The question is whether the order dated 5th January, 2024 has been
wilfully disobeyed. The petition must, therefore, be examined within the
confines of the protection granted by the said order.

31. The Petitioners allege that officials of the Forest Department and the

4
(2011) 11 SCC 396.

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 10 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
police damaged household articles, interfered with their access to the
property and acted in breach of the order dated 5 th January, 2024. The Status
Report filed by the concerned SHO records that, upon reaching the site on
1st February, 2024 pursuant to PCR calls, no construction activity was found
and nothing was found to indicate that Sandeep Kaur was residing at the
site. It further records that the Forest Beat Officer present at the spot stated
that two newly created entry points into the forest land had been closed.

32. The Forest Department, in its Counter Affidavit, denies having
undertaken any demolition and alleges that Sandeep Kaur repeatedly
attempted to encroach upon the forest land and damaged the departmental
portacabin. In support of its stand, it relies upon the ground report dated 6 th
August, 2024 and photographs of the site. However, those materials relate to
a later point of time and do not conclusively establish the physical condition
of the site on the dates when the alleged acts constituting contempt are stated
to have occurred.

33. The rival versions cannot be reconciled without first determining the
location and extent of the Petitioners’ possession, the boundaries of the
forest land, and whether the alleged obstruction related to the possession
protected by the order dated 5th January, 2024 or to subsequently created
access routes or other acts outside the scope of that order.

34. Such an enquiry falls outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction. As
observed by the Supreme Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Anr. v. Tarak
Nath Ganguly & Ors.5, the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction has to
consider the direction contained in the order alleged to have been violated
and is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 11 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53
decided therein. Similarly, in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
v. Chunilal Nanda & Ors.6, the same principle was reiterated that, while
exercising contempt jurisdiction, the Court may determine whether contempt
has been committed and matters incidental thereto, but it is not appropriate
to adjudicate or decide issues relating to the merits of the dispute between
the parties.

35. In the present case, determining whether the order dated 5 th January,
2024 has been wilfully disobeyed would necessarily require adjudication of
those disputed questions, which cannot appropriately be undertaken in
contempt proceedings. In any event, the material placed on record discloses
competing versions of the events, and the precise act alleged to constitute
wilful disobedience cannot be identified with the degree of certainty
required for the exercise of contempt jurisdiction. No case for initiating
contempt proceedings is, therefore, made out.

Conclusion & Directions

36. For the reasons recorded above, the petitions are disposed of in the
following terms:

i. W.P.(C) 2209/2023, W.P.(C) 5126/2023 and W.P.(C) 131/2024 are
dismissed.

ii. The Petitioners shall remain at liberty to pursue such remedy as may
be available to them under the Forest Act or before any other competent
forum. All questions concerning maintainability, limitation and the effect of
the statutory notifications are left open. This order shall not be construed as
condoning any delay or directing any authority to reopen proceedings that

5
(2002) 5 SCC 352.

(2006) 5 SCC 399.

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 12 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

iii. The Respondents shall remain at liberty to take action for the
protection and restoration of forest land, in accordance with law. Any action
against a particular structure or occupant shall be preceded by proper
identification and authenticated demarcation of the site concerned, wherever
required in law.

iv. The interim order dated 5th January, 2024 in W.P.(C) 131/2024, and
all other interim orders operating in these proceedings, stand vacated.
v. In order to afford the Petitioners a limited opportunity to avail an
appropriate remedy, the Respondents shall not take any coercive action
solely on the strength of this order for a period of two weeks from today.
During this period, the Petitioners shall not undertake any construction or
reconstruction, alter the nature of the land, create third party rights, enlarge
the area under their occupation, open any passage or obstruct the Forest or
Revenue authorities in the discharge of their statutory duties. Upon expiry of
the said period, the Respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance
with law.

vi. CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 is dismissed and the notices issued therein
are discharged. The dismissal of the contempt petition shall not be construed
as affirming the case of either party regarding possession, boundaries or the
alleged acts constituting contempt.

37. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 22, 2026/as

CONT.CAS(C) 651/2024 & connected matters Page 13 of 13

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 27/07/2026 at 21:51:53

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

Sandeep Kaur And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 22 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders