$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17102/2025 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saiba M. Rajpal, Mr. Gaganmeet Singh, Mr. Harshpreet Singh Chadha, Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advocates.

versus SHRI SURESH GULBANI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Ms. Afnan, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil) for R-2 & 3.

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, SC for MCD with Ms. Sneha Roy, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 20^th September, 2024, passed by the District Magistrate (South), GNCTD, whereby the Petitioner’s appeal preferred under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 19541 was rejected. By the said appeal, the Petitioner had sought to challenge the demarcation reports dated 27^th August, 2015 and 15^th March, 2017, carried out in respect of certain land situated in village Hauz Rani.

2. The controversy arises in the backdrop of W.P.(C) No. 842/2017 instituted by Respondent No. 1, who claims ownership over 15 biswas each in Khasra Nos. 215 (min) and 216 (min) in village Hauz Rani. In that petition, this Court, by order dated 27^th April, 2017, perused the demarcation report prepared by the SDM and recorded that it constituted prima facie evidence in favour of Respondent No. 1. The relevant observations are reproduced:

“ xxx xxx xxx

11. This Court is of the view that SDM’s report constitutes prima facie evidence in favour of the petitioner. If the respondents are aggrieved by the report of the SDM, they have to challenge the same in accordance with law. Till the time SDM's report is set aside, this Court will have to ensure that the rights of petitioner, owner of 15 biswas in Khasra Nos.215 (min) and216 (min) in Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi, which according to SDM's report is partly situated in Jamunwala Park, is protected.

12. After all the right to own property is a constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his land without compensation.

13. Consequently, till further orders, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to 15 biswas each in Khasra Nos. 2l5 (min) and 2l6 (min) to the extent they fall in Jamunwala Park as determined by the SDM. However, the respondents are at liberty to develop the remaining portion of Jamunwala Park in accordance with law.

14. To obviate any further controversy, Ms. Ahmadi has marked the portion of Jamunwala Park that according to the petitioner falls under his ownership on Select Infrastructure Private Limited Redevelopment Plan with red colour.

15. It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are prima facie in nature and the SDM's report is subject to further challenge by the respondents.

16. To determine as to what is the status quo as of today, Mr.S.P.Singh, Surveyor, DDA as well as the petitioner are directed to visit the site in question today and take photographs of the land in question with respect to which the status quo order has to be maintained. Let an affidavit with respect to the current status be placed on record along with the photographs within a period of two days.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present

1 “DLR Act”

application stands disposed of. Order dasti.

W.P.(C) No.842/2017 Respondent are directed to file their counter-affidavits within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder-affidavits, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 29^th August, 2017.

3. Exercising the liberty granted by this Court, the Petitioner/Delhi Development Authority, “DDA” preferred a statutory appeal under Section 64 of the DLR Act before the District Magistrate, impugning the demarcation reports. The appeal was however dismissed by the impugned order dated 20^th September, 2024, not on an evaluation of the demarcation on merits, but on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable because the land stood urbanised.

4. Mr. Ashim Vachher, Senior Counsel for DDA, submits th