Delhi High Court
CONT.CAS(C)/1592/2023 of SH. SATYSPAL RANA Vs SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (SDM ALIPUR) & ANR. on 20 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010435432023 + CONT.CAS(C) 1592/2023 SH. SATYSPAL RANA .....Petitioner Through: None. versus SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (SDM ALIPUR) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mob: 9479273444 Email:
$~15
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010435432023
+
CONT.CAS(C) 1592/2023
SH. SATYSPAL RANA
.....Petitioner
Through:
None.
versus
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (SDM ALIPUR) & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel
for GNCTD
Mob: 9479273444
Email: aanchalrajput@gmail.com
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 20.08.2026
1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 11th July, 2023, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7218/2023, wherein, directions had been issued to respondent no. 1 herein to implement the order dated 06th May, 2023, i.e., a Restrainment Order issued by the Revenue Department.
2. The present petition pertains to unauthorised construction and encroachment in land bearing Khasra No. 33/71-2 Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-110082.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”) submits that the area already stands urbanised. Therefore, he submits that there is no role to be played by respondent no. 1, i.e., Sub Division Magistrate (“SDM”), Alipur.
4. This Court notes that a Status Report dated 10th February, 2026, has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), wherein, DDA has stated as follows: “xxx xxx xxx ”
5. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report filed by the DDA shows that it is the stand of the DDA that the construction in question is long standing, and that the same had been done long before the urbanisation of the area in question.
6. Thus, as per the stand of the DDA no action is warranted by the DDA under the Delhi Development Act, 1952 (“DD Act”), as DDA had no jurisdiction or control over the land at the time when the construction was raised.
7. Accordingly, no further orders can be passed in the present petition.
8. Noting the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 20, 2026 ak