Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
SMT SANGEETA PUROHIT – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12918/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ayush Yadav, Mr. Kundan Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, Mr. Sarthak Anand, Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm

The court affirmed that the absence of ambiguity in property ownership by L&DO eliminates the need for inquiry, empowering the petitioner to seek civil remedies for title disputes.

Headnote:(A) Special Power of Attorney - Allotment and Succession - Relief sought includes inquiry into alleged fraudulent substitution and interim restraint on alienation of property - Court considered the evidentiary chain and concluded that L&DO found no ambiguity regarding ownership, denying inquiry request. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Title Disputes - The petitioner is free to pursue appropriate civil remedies concerning ownership issues. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed authority through a SPA over property recently disputed due to alleged fraud in ownership transfer.

Findings of Court:
L&DO stated the ownership chain and did not require inquiry.

Issues: The inquiry into ownership authenticity and the necessity for injunctions against current property holders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld L&DO’s assertion of a clear ownership status and ruled against the inquiry request.

Result: Petition disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petitioner claimed authority via a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) over property No. 11, Amrita Shergil Marg, alleging fraudulent substitution (!) (!) . - The relief sought included a writ of mandamus for a time-bound inquiry into alleged fraud and an interim injunction restraining current holders from alienating the property (!) (!) . - The Land & Development Office (L&DO) submitted that the chain of ownership and succession is clear and unambiguous based on their records (!) . - The Court ruled that since the L&DO found no ambiguity regarding ownership, there is no requirement to conduct a detailed inquiry (!) (!) . - Consequently, the Court refused the prayer for an inquiry and deemed it inappropriate to pass injunctive orders against the current substituted respondents (!) . - The petitioner was informed they are free to pursue appropriate civil remedies concerning ownership issues if they wish to raise a title dispute (!) . - The petition was disposed of without granting the requested inquiry or injunction (!) .

What are the rights of the petitioner to seek an inquiry into property ownership when the Land Development Office (L&DO) asserts there is no ambiguity in the ownership chain?

What is the legal requirement for the L&DO to conduct a detailed inquiry regarding property succession when the authority states the records are clear?

What are the options available to a petitioner for pursuing civil remedies regarding title disputes when a writ petition for inquiry and injunction is rejected?

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim and the ownership records. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. initial observations on the spa and its validity. (Para 3 , 4)
3. request for inquiry into property disputes. (Para 5)
4. court's refusal for inquiry and its reasoning. (Para 7 , 8)
5. petitioner's options for pursuing civil remedies. (Para 9 , 10)

O R D E R

% 27.08.2025

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is ostensibly the holder of a duly executed ‘ Special Power of Attorney ’ (SPA) in respect of the property bearing No. 11, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi-110003 (Old No. 43, Block-1, Ratendon Road).

2. It was averred in the petition that the said Special Power of Attorney has been executed in her favour by Sh. Sameer Chauhan, son of Shri Late Jalaluddin, who is stated to be the legal heir of the original allottee of the property in question i.e. late Sh. Tufail Ahmed Khan.

3. A perusal of the Special Power of Attorney reveals that the same contains several blanks in respect of certain particulars.

4. Be that as it may, the present petition has been considered on merits.

5. The relief sought in the present petition is in the following terms:-

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 (Land & Development Office) to conduct a time-bound inquiry (within 4-6 weeks) into the fraudulent substitution effected through alleged forged documents and Submit a detailed inquiry report to this Hon’ble Court forthwith upon completion.

ii. Grant an interim direction restraining Respondents 3-5, their agents and privies from alienating, transferring, encumbering or creating any third-party interest in Property No.11, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi-110003, pending the inquiry in L&DO and until further orders of this Hon’ble Court.

iii. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice”.

6. This matter was heard at some length on the previous date of hearing, i.e. on 25.08.2025, whereupon the learned counsel for the L&DO sought some time to peruse the relevant records and place on record the correct position as regards the property in question. Based on the records available with the L&DO, a written note has been furnished by learned counsel for the L&DO setting out the following factual position as regards the aforesaid property:-

“2. It is submitted that as per the records available with the Respondent No. 2, the following chain of ownership and substitution is subsisting with respect to the subject property:

2.1. The property, measuring 1.06 acres, was originally leased to Shri Tufail Ahmed Khan vide the perpetual lease deed 23.12.1939 by the Governor General in Council, registered 16.02.1940 (the “Original Allottee”) Council, registered 16.02.1940 (the "Original Allottee").

2.2. The Original Allottee sold the subject Property vide a sale deed dated 13.02.1948 in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi, which was registered on 25.02.1948.

2.3. Smt. Kamla Devi further sold the subject Property vide a sale deed dated 20.06.1949 in favor of Smt. Harnam Kaur, that registered on 15.07.1949.

2.4. Subsequently, a supplementary lease deed dated 13.04.1964 was executed by the office of the Respondent No.1-2 in favor of Smt.

Harnam Kaur, which was registered on 24.07.1964.

2.5. Upon, the demise of Smt. Harnam Kaur, the said Property was substituted in favor of Shri. Patwant Singh and Smt. Rasil Basu in equal proportions vide letter dated 10.07.1967, based on her will dated 30.12.1963, which was duly probated by order of Civil Judge dated 01.04.1965.

2.6. Subsequent, upon the demise of Smt. Rasil Basu, her 50% share in the subject Property was substituted in favor of her daughters; Smt. Amrita Basu and Smt. Rekha Borsellino Basu, vide substitution letter dated 25.08.2021, based on her registered will dated

09.05.2014.

2.7. Upon the demise of Shri Patwant Singh, his 50% share was substituted in favor of his wife, Smt. Meher Wilshaw, vide letter dated 31.08.2021 based on his will.”

7. It is the stand of the learned counsel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document