Bijendra Kumar And ORS v. Delhi Development Authority And ORS

$~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5827/2026, CM.

APPL.

28657/2026 & CM.

APPL.

28658/2026 BIJENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr Ankit Singh Sinsinwar and Mr.

Ravi Kumar, Advs.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

...Respondents

Through:

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, SC for DDA with Mr. Shivam Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir, Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs.

Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Adv. for MCD.

Mr. Ripudamn Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 28.04.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- "(a) A writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal;

(b) A writ of certiorari quashing the action of the Respondents in carrying out any sealing without identification of the public and private land, being illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide unwarranted and irrational and without any justifiable reason or cause, in violation of the rules & regulations and principles of equity, justice and good conscience.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

(c) A writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to carry out joint inspection/survey for identification of land in respect of Khasra No. 310, 311, 316 and 317, Village Khichripur, Delhi, before carrying out any kind of sealing/demolition.

(d) A writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from carrying out any sealing/ demolition against the Petitioners property till the joint inspection/survey is carried out at the demised land.

(e) A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the cost of this petition to the Petitioner;..."

2.

For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3.

Ms. Takiar, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

4.

A perusal of the prayers in the present petition, shows that the impugned action of sealing of the property is based on the letter dated 23.04.2026, which reads as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

5.

Since the e sealing programme is proposed to o be taken under the direction of the e monitoring committee, the petitione ers have an alternative The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

efficacious remedy of challenging the directions of the monitoring committee before the judicial committee.

6.

In view of the alternative remedy available, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the judicial committee. 7.

The respondents shall be mindful of the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time directing status quo. 8.

Since, the order of the monitoring committee is not with the petitioner, the same shall be provided to the petitioners within 24 hours. 9.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10.

The Court has not commented on the merits of the controversy. JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 28, 2026/NG The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.