$~12 to 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 847/2021 DLF LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Virmani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam, Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Ms. Diva Saigal & Ms. Shriya Gambhir, Advocates.

versus SUSHIL SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Prakhyat Solani & Mr. R. B.

Singh, Advocates for R-1.

+ W.P.(C) 2546/2014, CM APPL. 7793/2014, CM APPL. 12956/2019, CM APPL. 7484/2023, CM APPL. 1974/2024 & CM APPL.

79703/2025 TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Nayar & Ms. Swati Mittal, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate.

Mr. Bhagwan Sawrup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey & Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Prakhyat Solani & Mr. R. B.

Singh, Advocates for R-3.

Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate for R-4.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Ms. Shabiesta Nabi, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yashwardhan Sharma & Mr. Naman Sharma, Advocates for HPIL/intervenor.

+ W.P.(C) 654/2015, CM APPL. 7479/2023 & CM APPL. 79702/2025 DLF LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Virmani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam, Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Ms. Diva Saigal & Ms. Shriya Gambhir, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Sweety Singh, Advocate for R-1.

Ms. Sakshi Garg, Advocate.

Mr. Prakhyat Solani & Mr. R. B.

Singh, Advocates for R-3.

Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate for R-3.

Mr. Aditya Nayar & Ms. Swati Mittal, Advocates for R-4.

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Himanshi Singh, Ms. Priya Khurana & Mr. Harpal Singh, Advocates.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Ms. Shabiesta Nabi, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yashwardhan Sharma & Mr. Naman Sharma, Advocates for HPIL/intervenor.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 23.01.2026 W.P.(C) 2546/2014 & W.P.(C) 654/2015

1. The Petitioners claim ownership and possession over the land described in their respective writ petitions. The present proceedings arise from impugned orders dated 5^th August, 2013 and 29^th March, 2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalkaji,, “SDM” directing demarcation thereof. The said proceedings were initiated pursuant to claims raised by the private Respondents, namely Mr. Sushil Sharma and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, asserting rights in respect of the said land.

2. By separate orders dated 28^th April, 2014 in W.P.(C) 2546/2014 and 21^st January, 2015 in W.P.(C) 654/2015, this Court directed the SDM to maintain status quo. Thereafter, by separate orders dated 6^th January, 2016 passed in each of the petitions, the said interim directions were made absolute.

3. The Petitioners contend that the land in question had been urbanised prior to the initiation of the impugned proceedings and that, upon such urbanisation, the SDM ceased to have jurisdiction to order demarcation under the Delhi Land Revenue framework. Although, there may have been a contest to the Petitioners’ claims regarding the jurisdiction of the SDM, nonetheless, the said controversy has been put to rest by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (dead) through LRs and Another v.

Narain Singh and Others., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court records as follows:

“36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act, 1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non est and lose their legal significance.”

What flows from the aforesaid decision is that the authority of the SDM, being traceable exclusively to the Delhi land revenue / land reforms framework, stands confined to land retaining its character as revenue land an