$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16931/2025& CM APPL. 69596/2025 NEM CHAND JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tanmaya Mehta & Mr. Anurag Singh, Advs.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Astha Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

O R D E R

% 07.11.2025

1. This petition is filed challenging the appeal proceedings in Appeal No. 260/DCW/2013 titled Gaon Sabha Mundka v. Nem Chander Jain pending before the District Magistrate (West) with regard to land under Khasra No.40//20(1-01) admeasuring 1 Bigha 1 Biswa situated in revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the issue involved is similar to the one dealt with by this Court in W.P.(C) 10109/2024 titled Rajiv Bal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr and connected matters.

3. In W.P.(C) 10109/2024 and connected matters, following order was passed:

“1. These petitions are being disposed of by this order as the issue involved is common. For convenience, the facts are being taken from W.P.(C) 10109/2024.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking restraint order to respondent no.1/Govt. of NCT of Delhi to not proceed in proceedings pending under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short „DLR Act‟) in case No.93/DC/SOUTH/2013 in respect of the land described in the writ petition.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the land described in the writ petition situated in village Chhatarpur. The land was Urbanised in the year 2018 by way of issuance of notification dated 20.11.2019 under Section 507A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The proceedings initiated under Section 81 of DLR Act against the petitioner were dropped vide order dated 31.07.2013. The appeal filed by Gram Sabha through Block Development Officer (BDO) in year 2013 is pending before the Appellate Authority.

4. The issue involved in the present case is whether the pending proceedings including appeal on the date of urbanisation of land shall continue.

5. The following issues have been referred to a Larger Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2024:-

“a. Whether the law as expounded in Sanvik Engineers by the learned Single Judge and the proposition of law in LPA 295/2024 titled Subnam Gupta (Sabnam Gupta) vs. Union of India & Ors laid down by the learned Division Bench is the correct proposition of law?

b. Whether there is a divergence between the ratio of the judgements in Blue Bird Properties Pvt Ltd (Now Blue Bird Properties LLP) vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and judgement dated 25.04.2023 in LPA 188/2022 and Subnam Gupta Sabnam Gupta dated 15.04.2024 in LPA 295/2024 ? if so, which judgement lays down the correct law?

c. Whether the judgement of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh laying down the law that post notification u/s 507(a) of DMC Act 1957, the provisions of DLR Act, 1954 cease to apply and the proceedings pending thereunder would be non est in law would relegate the parties to the lis, to the alternate remedy of civil law redressal before the competent court of civil jurisdiction ? if so, at what stage and to what effect?

d. A Judicial clarity be rendered as to what would be the remedy available to various stakeholders who are as on the date of notification under section 507(a) DMC Act, 1957, at different stages of proceedings contemplated under the DLR Act, 1954?

e. Though not arising from the above, however, many such cases are being regularly filed under the provisions of EPH Act, 1948 in similar circumstances, whether the judgement of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh laying down the law that post notification u/s 507(a) of DMC Act 1957, the provisions of DLR Act, 1954 cease to apply and the proceedings pending thereunder would be non est in law would also apply in a similar fashion to proceedings pending under EPH Act, 1948 since definition of the word "land" appears to have commonality between the two enactments? if so, to what effect?(regard may be