SUDESH CHHIKARA vs DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 380/2024, CM APPL. 28178/2024 & CM APPL. 30350/2025 SUDESH CHHIKARA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jai Pal Singh, Advocate. versus DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubha Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD/r-1 & 2. Mr. Robin Ratnakar David and Mr. Nihar Baijal, Advocates for DHCLSC/ R-3. % Date of Decision: 19.05.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL) 1. The present letters patent appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 02.04.2024 (hereinafter referred as “impugned judgment”), whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant bearing W.P.(C) 4695/2024 titled Sudesh Chhikara vs. Divisional Commissioner, Delhi & Ors., on the ground that the appellant had not been able to demonstrate the perversity in the observations made by two authorities/forum below i.e. by the Appellate Court of Divisional Commissioner as also by the District Magistrate, (South-West), Delhi. 2. The appellant had preferred the underlying writ petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Appellate Court of the Divisional Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 380/2024 Page 1 of 6 By:MADHU SARDANA Signing Date:21.05.2025 11:28:46 Commissioner, Delhi rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant herein assailing the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the District Magistrate wherein the District Magistrate had directed the appellant herein to vacate the property bearing No. C-33, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi- 110059 (hereinafter referred as “Subject property”). 3. It is the case of the appellant that respondent no.3/Baljeet Singh, who is father-in-law of the appellant, h