$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1771/2026 & CM APPLs. 8618-8619/2026 MANJEET KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ayaz Ahmed, Advocate.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar, Mr. Rashneet Singh and Ms. Sana Parveen, Advocates for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. This writ petition seeks issuance of directions to the Respondents to regularise Petitioner’s possession in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 19/16, situated in the revenue estate of Village Kharkhari Rond, Delhi, measuring 04 Bigha 16 Biswa.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 30^th October, 1975, the subject land was allotted for agricultural purposes to his grandmother by the Gram Sabha through the BDO, Najafgarh, and LR Form No. 37 bearing Receipt No. 31 was issued in that regard. It is further asserted that the said allotment finds mention in the Khasra Girdawari (revenue records) of Village Kharkhari Rond for the year 1987-88.

3. The Petitioner states that on 25^th March, 1998, he preferred an application under Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 seeking declaration of his status as Bhumidhar; however no response was received thereto.

4. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court. On a pointed query as to the status of the aforesaid application under Section 74(4), counsel for the Petitioner submits that no formal order of rejection has been passed and, to his knowledge, the application remains pending. It is, however, contended that in view of the urbanisation of the land, the competent revenue authority would lack jurisdiction to decide the same. In these circumstances, a prayer is made that Respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to regularise the Petitioner’s possession over the subject land.

5. The Court has considered submissions advanced by the Petitioner. The factum of urbanisation of the land is not in dispute. In view thereof, if the Petitioner seeks to assert proprietary rights on the basis of the alleged allotment and revenue entries, he would necessarily be required to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the competent forum. As on date, no imminent or demonstrable threat of dispossession has been placed on record. The application under Section 74(4) itself dates back to the year 1998, and the list of dates spanning from 1998 till 2026 does not disclose any intervening event establishing lawful recognition of the Petitioner’s status as Bhumidhar or otherwise validating his possession. This prayer for interim protection in respect of possession would have to be urged before the forum competent where the Petitioner seek to adjudicate the substantive relief of regularisation of land status.

6. In light of the foregoing, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.

7. All rights and contentions of the Petitioner are reserved to be agitated before the appropriate forum.

8. Disposed of along with pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 9, 2026 as