Disputed questions of title in unauthorized colonies involving factual evidence cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction and are best addressed through a civil suit for permanent injunction.

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

a) Restraining the Respondents or its officials/employees particularly officials/employees of Respondent No.I from demolishing, dispossessing Petitioner from her property and interfering with the possession of the Petitioner on her property i.e. property/plot no.434A, Gali No.l5, L Block MahipalPur Extn., Village MahipalPur, Delhi., which is part of unauthorized colony.

b) any other or further writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be also issued in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.

2. Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner purchased plot no. 434A, Street No.15, Block L, Mahipalpur Extn., Village Mahipalpur, Delhi vide registered Sale Deed dated 06.11.2025.

3. It is submitted that one Mr. Pyarelal S/o Shri Subhram was recorded owner of land of Khasra no. 686. Shri Pyarelal sold plot to Shri Ram Swarup S/o Shri Chandu Lal resident of Village Rasgan, Tehsil Rewari, Haryana on the basis of Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Will etc. in the year 1989. Later on the said property was given nomenclature plot no. 434A, Gali No.15, L Block Mahipalpur Extn., Village Mahipalpur, Delhi (herein after called the “subject property”).

4. That Shri Om Prakash and Shri Dharam Veer Raghav both sons and attorney of Shri Ram Swarup S/o Shri Chandu Lal sold the subject property measuring 71 sq. yds. to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 06.11.2025.

5. It is stated in para Nos. 37 and 38 of the petition that the persons/ officials of the DDA came to the site on 30.12.2025 threatening demolition/ dispossession of the petitioner from the plot in question.

6. It is the petitioner’s case that no notice has been received from the respondent with regard to the demolition or the dispossession of the petitioner and the same is contrary to the provisions of law.

7. He further relies on an order dated 22.12.2020 passed in WP.C. 10905/2020, wherein interim protection has been granted to the adjoining properties.

8. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel relies on the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorized Colonies) Regulations, 2019, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, 2023.

9. It is his submission that in view of the provisions and aforesaid regulations, the property sold on Agreement to Sell and power of attorney cases are recognized by the respondent.

10. Additionally, Mahipalpur extension is regularized by the respondent and no demolition actions can be taken in view of the aforesaid provisions.

11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

12. In the present case, the fact whether the predecessors in interest were the recorded owners, were correctly recorded as the owners, were capable of transferring the title in favour of the petitioner, are all questions of fact which need to be established though evidence.

13. Additionally, the averments made in para Nos. 37 and 38 regarding the officials of DDA visiting the site and threatening demolition are vague allegations without any details.

14. For the said reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy, which is to file a civil suit for injunction. Granting the said liberty, the petition is disposed of.

15. Mr. Yadav, le