W.P.(C) 11171 /2021

Page 1 of 3

$~34

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Date of Decision:30.09.2021

%W.P.(C) 11171 /2021& C.M. Nos. 34385 /2021

KIRAN PAL SINGH TYAGI ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Adv.

Versus

MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. T.P. Singh Senior Central

Government

Counsel

for

Respondent No. 9/ UOI-L&DO

Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta and

Nihaarika Jauhari Advocates for

Respondent No. 10/DDA

Anjum Javed ASC GNCTD with

Devendra Kumar, Faran Ahmed,

Ms

Priti

Advocates

for

Respondent-No. 11 & 14

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a declaration

that the sale deed executed in favour of one Mr. Shyam Mishra on 03.09.2016

registered in the office of the Sub Registrar VIII, Preet Vihar, Delhi vide

document No. 4623, Book No. 1, Volume-865, registered at pages 232-240 be

declared null and void. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the order

dated 05.10.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 879/ 2015 in a nullity,

having been obtained by fraud played upon the Court. The petitioner seeks

imposition of heavy penalty on the writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition

for misleading this Court, and also to take appropriate action against them in

accordance with law.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000198

W.P.(C) 11171 /2021

Page 2 of 3

2.

A perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is raising all

disputed questions of fact. In fact, the locus standi of the petitioner to seek the

reliefs as sought in the writ petition is also not clear. The relief that the

petitioner seeks for a declaration that the aforesaid sale deed is null and void

cannot be sought in these writ proceedings and, in our view, even if the

petitioner has any locus standi to assail the said sale deed, it is for the petitioner

to take such other remedy in that regard, as may be available in law.

3.

So far as the relief sought with regard to the order dated 05.10.2015 in

W.P.(C) No. 879/2015 is concerned, a perusal of the same shows that the Court

was dealing with a writ petition preferred by the petitioners therein, premised on

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This petition was

allowed by the Court, premised upon the position of law as it existed prior to the

decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Indore

Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Following the decisions, inter alia, in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr v

Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 183, the writ petition was

allowed and a declaration was issued that the acquisition proceedings initiated

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the subject land are deemed

to have lapsed.

4.

The case of the petitioner is that the said order was obtained on a false

premise. It is well settled that it is not permissible to assail a judicial order

passed in a writ petition by a High Court, by filing a separate writ petition. Such

a writ petition would not be maintainable. We may refer to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Others v. State Of

Maharashtra And Another,(1966) 3 SCR 744. The Supreme Court in this

judgment has held as follows:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000198

W.P.(C) 11171 /2021

Page 3 of 3

inter-partes in the sense that it affects strangers to the proceedings, it has

been passed by the High Court in relation to a matter pending before it

for its adjudication and as such, like other judicial orders passed by the

High Court in proceedings pe