$~88

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 488/2026, CM APPL. 2384/2026

MANISHA KHAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak (Standing

Counsel), Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Ms Joohu Kumari,

Advs. for R-2

Ms. Kritika Gupta, Ms. Vidushi

Singhania, Advocates. For R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

CM APPL. 2385/2026

Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 488/2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following prayers:-

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from forcibly dispossessing the Petitioner, demolishing residential houses, erecting boundary walls or in any manner interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession of Khasra No. 921/1, 921/2, 922,

944, 1059 Village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi; and

B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from destroying standing agricultural crops on the subject land, including the mustard crop presently growing thereon; and”

2. For the reason stated in the petition, issue notice.

3. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. Mr. Pathak, learned standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is neither challenging the taking of the possession of the subject land i.e., Khasra No. 921/1, 921/2, 922, 944, 1059 Village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi, by the respondent nor that the subject land is in the possession of the respondent or that the acquisition proceedings were malafide and not in accordance with law.

5. However, he only seeks 1 week’s time to remove the crop on the subject land, which can be salvaged/sold as fodder. The prayer of the petitioner is reasonable.

6. The petitioner is present in-person in the Court and is identified by Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and the content of the order has been explained to her.

7. The petitioner is permitted 1 week from today to remove the crop on the subject land.

8. Additionally, my attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1252 and more particularly paragraph No. 28, which reads as under:-

“28. In light of the aforesaid analysis, we dispose of these Contempt Petitions, discharge the rule nisi and issue the following directions:

i. In light of the extensive ecological damage caused, urgent and time- bound remedial measures must be undertaken by the DDA in coordination with the GNCTD. These efforts shall be guided and overseen by the Committee constituted by this Court and comprising of Shri Ishwar Singh, Shri Sunil Limaye and Shri Pradip Krishen. The following directions are issued to be complied with strictly within a period of three (3) months:

a. The DDA is directed to arrange the visit of the Committee to see the suitability of the 185 acres of land identified and proposed to be used towards compensatory afforestation;

b. If the Committee opines that such land can be utilised for the purposes of afforestation, it may then, with the assistance of other domain experts, initiate the process of selection or shortlisting of appropriate native species, the methodology of plantation, survival rate monitoring, and post-plantation maintenance and care;

c. The Committee may commence the afforestation exercise by formulating a plan that ensures the plantation of trees is undertaken in a manner that optimally maximises the ecological advantage of the impending monsoon season.

ii. In order to ensure strict and effective enforcement of (i) above, the Forest Department shall work under the supervision of the Committee, for which, the entire expenditure is to