KANHAIYA LAL THROUGH SPA HOLDER vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 18.11.2025 Judgment delivered on: 26.11.2025 + LPA 1092/2024, CM APPL. 64384/2024, CM APPL. 64385/2024 & CM APPL. 64387/2024 KANHAIYA LAL THROUGH SPA HOLDER .....Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Goel, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Kritika Gupta and Ms. Vidushi Singhania, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Mayank Sansanwal, Mr. Akash Mittal and Mr. Om Ram, Advocates for R-2 & 3/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10311/2019 titled “Kanhaiya Lal vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.” dismissing the said writ petition imposing costs of Rs.50,000/-. 2. Shorn off of all unnecessary details, it is to be noticed that when the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 1092/2024 Page 1 of 12 By:YASHRAJ Signing Date:26.11.2025 15:56:09 appellant came to realize that the officials of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter mentioned as “DDA”) had started digging trenches in order to construct the boundary wall on a plot adjacent to the appellant’s plot (hereinafter mentioned as “Subject Plot”), the appellant filed complaints with various authorities, including the DDA. In response, the DDA uploaded its reply on the CPGRAMS Portal on 06.02.2019 indicating that the subject plot was vacant and was encroached upon by the owners of the adjoining H.No. 124A in the shape of an extended sunshade balcony and two gates with four ventilators. The Deputy Director (Land Ma