$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2479/2014, CM APPL. 47881/2016, CM APPL. 34096/2017, CM APPL. 51750/2018, CM APPL. 13353/2019, CM APPL.

34150/2019, CM APPL. 52882/2024 & CRL.M.A. 4775/2017 T N CHOPRA & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Prosenjeet Benerjee, Mr. Tarang Gupta & Ms. Shreya Sharma, Advs.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Jagrati Singh, SC, MCD with Mr.

Rajpal, Mr. Surendra Kumar & Mr.

Yuvan Bhatnagar, Advs.

Mr. Sarad Kumar Sunny & Mr.

Madhav Binzani, Advs.

Mr. R. K. Dhawan, SC with Ms.

Nisha Dhawan, Mr. Pawan Karan Deo, Mr. V. K. Teng & Mr. K. R.

Madhar, Advs.

Ms Asha Jain Madan & Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advs.

Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026

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

“A) issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling Respondents No. 1 & 2 to remove encroachment on public land earmarked in blue in ANNEXURE-B by taking all such steps including carrying out demolition of the illegal constructions/structures raised on the said Public Park;

B) issue a permanent restraint order/direction against private Respondents No. 3 & 4 their agents representatives, assigns and successors from carrying out any further construction in the concerned Public Park while directing Respondents No. 1 & 2 to ensure that no further construction is carried out;...”

2. The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the plot bearing No. 2, Bank Enclave and the petitioner No. 2 is his son also residing on the said address with him. The respondent No. 1 is the Delhi Development Authority, a statutory body responsible to promote and secure the planned development of Delhi. The respondent No. 2 is the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (“EDMC”), which was the body entrusted with municipal duties for the specific concerned jurisdiction, which is now re-unified into a single entity i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”). The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the alleged encroachers upon the adjacent public park land, and the respondent No. 5 is the Punjab National Bank (“PNB”) Cooperative Housing Building Society.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 has been allotted plot no. 2, Bank Enclave on 22.02.1980. The layout plan of the PNB Staff Group Housing Society sanctioned by the respondent No. 2 shows the land adjacent to plot no. 2 earmarked for “Park”. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have constructed ground floor on the land adjacent to the park and encroached upon the park area. The petitioners raised their grievances before the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but to no avail. The respondent No. 1 has already handed over the said land to the respondent No. 2, i.e. EDMC vide notification dated 31.05.1989. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

4. My attention has been drawn to the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by this Court, wherein the concerned departments were directed to carry out the joint inspection. The report pursuant to the order of 19.07.2016, filed by EDMC reads as under:-

5. The respondent No. 1/DDA has also stated on affidavit that the area in question measuring about 0.064 acres approximately 315 sq yards adjoining plot no. 2 of Bank Enclave is a public Park. The same is also verified from the affidavit filed by the EDMC on 18.04.2017, wherein paragraph No. 8 reads as under:-

8. That subsequently the Town Planning Department considered the issue. By its note dated 04.01.2017, the Town Planning Department, EDMC was of the view that the area in question was to be treated as park and that reliance upon the modified layout plan of Laxmi Nagar Complex (page 196 of court file) was not correct. It was also stated by the Town Planning Department that the layout plan relied upon by Land & Estate Department (page 196 of court file) pertained to Laxmi Nagar Complex and did not pertain to the Bank Enclave. Therefore, the said layout plan could not be relied upon for ascert