$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2351/2026 & CM APPLs. 11403-11404/2026 MR RAM KUMAR GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yashwant Singh and Mr. Harshit Anand, Advocates.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. R.K. Dhawan, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. Pawan Karan Deo and Mr. V.K. Teng, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026

1. The Petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of the subject property,1 having acquired the same in the year 1991 by registered deeds of conveyance dated 15^th March, 1991 and 4^th May, 1991. It is stated that the property was mutated in his favour as reflected in O-4 Sumar No. 1249 (Misal No. 738/91-92) and O-4 Sumar No. 1251 (Misal No. 740/91-91)

dated 22^nd May, 1992.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, in the year 2012, a mutation entry came to be recorded in the revenue records in favour of a third party, Respondent No. 4, Shri Rakesh, pursuant to Order No. M- 778/THE./S.V./2011-2012 dated 28^th May, 2012 in the case titled ‘Anoop

1 Land measuring 3 Bighas and 6 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 16/7 (1-10) min., and 16/13 (1-16)

min., situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghewra, Delhi.

Kumar Agarwal vs. Mukesh Chander.’ The Petitioner asserts that the said entry is fraudulent, without jurisdiction, and contrary to record.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 64B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, “DLR Act” before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, North-West, Kanjhawala, Delhi, challenging the said mutation.

4. At a subsequent stage, the said appeal came to be withdrawn by the Petitioner’s counsel. The Petitioner asserts that this was done without his consent. Be that as it may, an application for restoration was thereafter filed. During the pendency of these proceedings, the land in question was urbanised by virtue of a Gazette Notification dated 6^th May, 2017 issued under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.3

5. As a consequence of such urbanisation, the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act ceased to apply. The issue is no longer res integra. In Mohinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs & Anr. v. Narain Singh & Ors.,, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261. the Supreme Court held that upon issuance of a notification under Section 507 of the DMC Act urbanising the area, the DLR Act ceases to apply, and the authorities thereunder lack jurisdiction to continue proceedings.

6. In view of the above, the Petitioner asserts that despite his title over the property, he has been rendered remediless and has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, seeking the following prayers:

“1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No 1 – Delhi Development Authority to effect mutation of the Petitioners land measuring 3 Bighas and 6 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.

3 “DMC Act”

16/7 (1-10 min.) and 16/13 (1-16 min.), Village Ghewra, Delhi, in favour of the Petitioner based on his registered title documents and prior mutation order dated 22.05.1992;

2. Alternatively, issue a Declaratory Direction to the Respondent No 1 and Respondent No 2 to frame and notify an appropriate procedure for dealing with mutation and record updation of lands which have transitioned from rural to urban character.

3. Issue a Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus directing the relevant revenue authorities to treat the mutation entry recorded in the year 2012 in favour of Respondent No 4 as void, and inoperative for the purposes of updating the urban land records, as the sale deed relied upon for mutation was not in the name of the person in whose favour mutation was sanctioned, and the property description contained in the sale deed did not correspond to the subject khasra numbers owned by the client and is as such contrary to the lawful title held by the Petitioner;

4. Issue a Declaratory Direction holding that the refusal/inability of the authorities to