$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13^th March, 2026 Uploaded on:18^th March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 2546/2020 ANOOP SHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Prabhakar, Mr. Uday Sharma and Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Advs.

versus GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD with Ms.

Harshita Nathrani, Adv. for R-1 .

Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing Counsel for MCD with Ms. Riddhi Jain, Ms. Archie Garg, Ms. Shayna Das Pattanayak, Advs. for MCD Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Ms.

Soyarchon Khangrah, Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by Petitioner - Anoop Shankar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the notification bearing no. F.13(43)/MB/UD/2014/1602 dated 29^th July, 2016 issuedbythe UrbanDevelopment Department ofthe Governmentof National Capital Territory of Delhi in respect of his property being 317, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.

3. The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the said notification which declares the said property of the Petitioner to be a heritage site. The case of the Petitioner is that the said notification has been issued without following the due process. The prayers in this writ petition are as under:

A. Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorariquashing(a) thenotificationnumber F.13 (43)/MB/UD/2014/1602 dated 29th of July 2016 by the Urban Development Department of the Government of NCTof Delhi, the respondent no.l as ultra vires qua the petitioner's property i.e. 317, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (b) the letter number 7410/17 dated of November 2017 by the Town Planning Department of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the respondent no. 3. B. Issue a writ of quo warranto directing the respondents to explain as to under what provisions of law and by what authority the property of the petitioner was declared to be a heritage property.

C. Issue a writ of declaration declaring that the petitioner'spropertyhasbeendeclaredasaheritage site/property without complying with the procedure envisaged in the building bye laws be it the Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi 2016 or the Building Bye Laws 1983.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that the property of the Petitioner was constructed by one Sh. Lala Ram Swaroop Khanna in 1924 and at that time, it was described as House No. 130. Thereafter, it was gifted by late Sh. Khanna on 5^th September, 1941 to his nephew i.e., Sh. Radhey Shiam Ji by way of a registered gift deed. The said beneficiary thereafter executed a Will in favour of Sh.RamShankar on17^th May, 1971.Adispute was raised byone Ms. Parvati Khanna against Sh. Radhey Shiam which was referred to arbitration. An arbitral award was passed in favour of Sh. Radhey Shiam, by sole Arbitrator namely, Sh. Krishan Khanna, on 28^th February, 1973. The same was made the rule of the Court on 14^th March, 1973.

5. The said Sh. Ram Shankar in whose favour the property was transferred, expired leaving behind three legal heirs i.e., his two sons Shri Ravi Shanker, Shri Anoop Shanker and daughter Ms. Rekha Mehra. The present petition has been filed by one of his sons, i.e., Shri Anoop Shankar in whose favour, his sister has executed a relinquishment deed in favour of both brothers on 4^th November, 2012. As per the Petitioner, the status of the heirs of the brother have not been set out in the present petition.

6. Sometime in 2015, the Heritage Conservation Committee (hereinafter, ‘HCC’) is stated to have received a communication from North Delhi Municipal Corporation now Municipal Corporation Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) by which approval was sought in respect of 526 heritage sites and 26 properties falling in South Delhi. The HCC had in its minutes sought certain clarifications on 21^st October, 2016.