Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
Hansraj Goswami - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1839 of 2025, C.M. APPL. No. 37960 of 2025
Decided On : 20-08-2025
For the Appellants : Rohit Shukla, Vivek Kumar Gaurav, Sunil Prajapati, Pawan Sharma
For the Respondents: Sunieta Ojha, Pragti Bhatia, Vasudha Priyansha
High Court can adjudicate disputes over property claims in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, provided the facts don’t require extensive evidence; disputed ownership must be resolved to permit property mutation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition to quash notice of property tax by Municipal Corporation of Delhi - Dispute regarding ownership of property between petitioner and alleged original owner - Petitioner claimed ownership via a registered Will, but original owner reportedly still alive - Court finds petitioner's title under cloud due to the existence of competing claims and lack of possession. (Paras 1-39)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - High Court has the authority to examine disputed questions of fact if they do not require elaborate evidence - However, existence of disputed questions alone does not impede the High Court's jurisdiction if justice requires such examination. (Paras 15-19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash a notice from the Municipal Corporation requiring property tax payment before proceeding with mutation based on a Will from a deceased owner; the MCD provided evidence suggesting that the original owner was still alive.
Findings of Court:
The Court dismissed the writ petition on grounds that the petitioner failed to establish undisputed ownership or possession over the property in question.
Issues: The main issues pertained to the legitimacy of the property claim by the petitioner and the implications of the original owner's existence for property mutation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that due to disputes regarding ownership and the petitioner's lack of possession, no mutation could be ordered; the existence of another claimant necessitated caution in granting relief through writ jurisdiction.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash mcd notice and reassess property tax. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. mcd claims original owner alive; disputes over property ownership. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. petitioner disputes mcd's evidence of ownership and identity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 20) |
| 4. court can determine facts despite disputed questions; applies article 226 powers. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. details of mcd's inspection process and parties' awareness of claim. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. ownership cloud affects petitioner's claim; relief not granted. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 38) |
| 7. writ petition dismissed; next hearing canceled. (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the notice/letter dated 08th January, 2025, issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) for property bearing Khasra No. 1092, Khatauni No. 369, Khevat No. 199, area measuring 10 Bighas, 04 Bishwas, situated at Mauja Patti Bans, Koli Mauja, Aram Bagh, Rani Jhansi Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110055.
2. There is further prayer in the petition for directing the respondent-MCD to reassess the property tax due on the said property and thereafter, to mutate the property in the name of the petitioner, i.e., Hansraj Goswami.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was bequeathed the aforesaid property through a registered Will dated 03rd September, 2019, executed by the lawful owner, i.e., late Smt. Amrita Devi. It is the petitioner‟s case that owner of the property in question, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, passed away on 04th September, 2023, after which the petitioner has become the absolute owner. The petitioner had applied for mutation of the subject property before the MCD on 14th October, 2024. However, no action was taken by the MCD with regard thereto.
4. Subsequently, MCD issued a notice dated 08th January, 2025, making mutation conditional upon payment of property tax. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed, challenging the said letter dated 08th January, 2025.
5. This Court notes that in the order dated 03rd July, 2025, statement on behalf of the respondent-MCD had been recorded that as per the information received by the MCD, the original owner of the property in question, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, is still alive. The relevant portion of the order dated 03rd July, 2025, reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD, who submits that the original owner of the property in question, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi is still alive, as per the information received by the MCD. She further submits that the MCD is, thus, investigating the matter with regard thereto.
xxx xxx xxx”
6. Today, learned counsel for the respondent-MCD submits that a reply on their behalf has been filed on 12th August, 2025, however, the same is not on record. Learned counsel has handed over a physical copy of the said reply, which is taken on record.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-MCD, relying upon the said reply dated 12th August, 2025, submits that the MCD received a letter from the purported original owner, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, that she is still alive and that she had executed some other certain documents in favour of one Mr. Murari Lal Gupta, at Bhiwani, Haryana.
8. She further submits that the MCD had inspected the property in question and had duly informed the petitioner herein, as well as the purported original owner of the property, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, including, the persons who are in possession of the property in question, about the said inspection.
9. She submits that the inspection of the land in question was duly carried out by the MCD on 11th July, 2025. She further submits that despite notice, neither the petitioner, nor the aforesaid Smt. Amrita Devi, were present at the time of inspection.
10. Learned counsel for MCD submits that at the time of inspection, it was found that the occupier of the property in
