Raj Kumar Sharma@Shandilya v. Government Of NCT Delhi & ANR.

$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 774/2025 RAJ KUMAR SHARMA@SHANDILYA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advs. with petitioner in person.

versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel GNCTD, Ms. Purnima Jain Advocate & Mr. Madhur, Advocates for R-1 & 2.

Mr. Vipul Ganda, ASC for NDMC with Ms. Nitu Barik and Mr. Gyanesh Tiwari, Advs. for R-9.

Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Ms.

Seema Sundd and Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advs.

for applicantKaranjawala and Co.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 15.01.2026 CM APPL. 2622/2026 (by the petitioner for early hearing) Since the petition itself is being decided today, the application stands allowed and disposed of.

W.P.(C) 774/2025 1.

The petition is for the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ, order for direction commending the Respondent no.1 to decide the application dated 23.11.2023 pending before it expeditiously; The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

and/or b. Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus; and/or c. Any other order or relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2.

The grievance of the petitioner seems to be against respondent no.1, for not deciding his pending application dated 23.11.2023. 3.

Though Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel who appears for the impleadment applicant, has a strong objection regarding maintainability of the application on the ground that the title over the land in question has been reaffirmed by various Courts, however, the Court is of the opinion that the pending application dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) will have to be taken tok its logical conclusion by the concerned authority. 4.

If the application is not maintainable or bereft of any substance, the said findings have to be explicitly recorded by the authority. However, in case, the authority is of the opinion, that an action is contemplated, the same will also have to be initiated in accordance with law. 5.

Under these circumstances, the petition stands disposed of with the following directions:

i.

Let the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, South East, New Delhi, by way of fresh representation along with a copy of the petition and all documents within a period of seven days from today.

ii.

On doing so, the said authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner and to take it to its logical conclusion. iii.

If the authority is of the opinion that some action is required to be taken, the affected parties must be heard.

iv.

The impleadment applicant shall also be at liberty to put forth his The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

version before the said authority.

v.

Let appropriate steps be taken by the said authority with due expedition.

6.

The date already fixed i.e. 16.03.2026 stands cancelled. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 15, 2026 P/AMG The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.