Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
MILA SEN AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-6004/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Fahim Khan
For the Respondents: Giriraj Subramanium, Avantika Singh, Ravi Pathak, Gaurav Gupta, Ridhima Purohit, Tapas Gaur, Avisha Jain

Layout plans can be modified administratively without statutory notice if consistent with the Master Plan. Claims for prescriptive easements are questions of fact requiring a civil suit and cannot be adjudicated via a writ petition under Article 226.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Section 11A - Modification of Layout Plans - A layout plan is a working drawing and can be administratively modified by the developing authority without invoking the statutory procedure of publishing notices and inviting objections as prescribed for modifications to the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan, provided such modification remains consistent with the applicable statutory plans. (Paras 49-53)

(B) Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Sections 15, 28, 33, 35 and 44 - Prescriptive Easements to light and air - To establish a prescriptive easement, the claimant must prove peaceful, open, and uninterrupted enjoyment for 20 years (or 30 years if the property belongs to the government) and that the obstruction results in substantial damage or materially diminishes the value of the dominant heritage. (Paras 61-65)

(C) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scope of Writ Jurisdiction - Questions involving the determination of prescriptive easementary rights are pure questions of fact requiring the leading of evidence and are not suitable for adjudication in summary writ proceedings. The appropriate remedy for such disputes is a civil suit for declaration or injunction. (Paras 66-68)

(D) Jurisprudence - Actus curiae neminem gravabit - Where a party is disadvantaged by a court's stay order, the court may restore the party to their original position, such as by extending the validity of a building sanction plan that expired during the operation of the stay. (Paras 73-74)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners owned a property and challenged a modified layout plan of a residential area and the subsequent auction of an adjacent plot. They alleged that a back lane serving their property was illegally incorporated into the auctioned plot, resulting in construction that blocked their access to sunlight and air ventilation. The developing authority contended that the layout plan modification was administrative and consistent with statutory urban plans. The auction purchaser, who had commenced construction, argued that the petitioners' claims were based on disputed questions of fact regarding easements.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the layout plan in question was administrative in nature and did not require the formal procedure under the urban development act. Furthermore, it was noted that the petitioners themselves were beneficiaries of the same modified layout plan as their own plot was carved out by it, thus estopping them from challenging its validity. Regarding the easementary claims, the court held that these are factual disputes that cannot be decided in a writ petition.

Issues: Whether the administrative modification of a layout plan requires the statutory procedure of notice and invitation of objections prescribed for amending a Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan; and whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy to enforce prescriptive easementary rights to light and air.

Ratio Decidendi: Layout plans are distinct from statutory Zonal Development Plans and can be modified administratively if they conform to the Master Plan. Prescriptive easements are established based on factual evidence of long-term uninterrupted use and substantial interference, making a civil suit the only appropriate legal forum for such adjudication. Additionally, a party cannot challenge a plan from which they have derived a benefit.

Result: The petition is dismissed; interim relief is vacated; liberty is granted to the petitioners to file civil proceedings; and the municipal corporation is directed to extend the validity of the building sanction plan for the adjacent plot.

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 10.03.2026 Judgment Delivered on: 16.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 6004/2021 CM APPL. 18987/2021, CM APPL.

20912/2021, CM APPL. 27197/2021, CM APPL. 18827/2023, CM APPL. 28077/2024, CM APPL. 14292/2025 & CM APPL.

48225/2025 MILA SEN AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Fahim Khan, Advocate.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Ms.

Avantika Singh and Mr. Ravi Pathak, Advocates for R3.

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Ms. Ridhima Purohit, Mr. Tapas Gaur and Ms.

Avisha Jain, Advocates for R4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

1. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“i. Pass appropriate orders/directions thereby, directing the Respondents to stop the construction in south portion of building of the petitioners;

ii. Pass/issue appropriate writ/directions/orders holding the e-auction dated 25.06.2019 of Plot No. 04 held by respondent no.1 as illegal since the same is carved out by including 'public land' i.e. the back lane of the said property and thereby quashing/cancelling the e-auction of Plot No. 04 in Pocket O, C.R. Park by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 3;

iii. Pass/issue appropriate writ/directions/orders holding the modified layout plan of Pocket O, C.R. Park dated 03.12.1990 is in contravention to the law of the land and thereby quashing/cancelling the modified layout plan of Pocket O, C.R. Park approved by the 65^thScreening Committee meeting held on 03.12.1990 vide item no. 03, to the extent that it restores the backlane of the said property belonging to the petitioners”

2. The case set out by the petitioners in the amended petition is that petitioner no.1 is a senior citizen, who owns the ground floor of property bearing no. Plot No.2, Pocket-O, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 [hereinafter also referred to as ‘said property’] and residing therein for the past 21 years with her husband. Petitioner no.2 is the son of petitioner no.1, who is a tenant on the first floor of the said property. The said property admeasures 124.85 sqr.yrds and was originally purchased in an auction by Smt. Ranjeeta Sinha from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on leasehold basis. The registered perpetual lease deed dated 01.06.1993 shows that the said propertyis bounded as under:

NORTH - Road EAST - Plot No.O-1 SOUTH - Lane WEST - Plot No.O-3

3. The allotment of said property was made in favour of Smt. Ranjeeta Sinha after the modification of original layout plan of Chittaranjan Park (C.R. Park) approved in the 65^th Screening Committee Meeting held on 03.12.1990 as item no.03, wherein, as per modified layout plan, total 10 number of plots were carved out instead of originally proposed 18 number of plots. Thereafter, the said property was allotted to the original allottee namely, Smt. Ranjeeta Sinha, vide allotment letter dated 30.09.1991, possession thereof was handed over on 29.03.1993 and the lease deed was executed on 01.06.1993.

4. The original allottee sold the said property to one M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd., who in turn sold to Shri Sanjay Navanay vide Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 23.08.1999.

5. Shri Sanjay Navanay constructed a building on the said property after getting the plan sanctioned from the concerned authorities and got the property converted from leasehold to freehold vide registered conveyance deed dated 05.05.2000.

6. Petitioner no.1, after considering that the said property has sufficient open space with air ventilation and sunlight from front and back along with exposure of sunlight, purchased the ground floor of the said property from Shri Sanjay Navanay vide registered sale deed dated 15.07.2000.

7. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 along with her family has resided in the ground floor of the said property ever since it was purchased i.e. for the past 21 years.

8. It is also stated in the petition that as per the origi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIVikas Mahajan, JMILA SEN AND ANR – AppellantVersusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS – RespondentW.P.(C)-6004/2021

Layout plans can be modified administratively without statutory notice if consistent with the Master Plan. Claims for prescriptive easements are questions of fact requiring a civil suit and cannot be adjudicated via a writ petition under Article 226.

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
MILA SEN AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-6004/2021