W.P.(C) 1093/2015 Page 1 of 6 $~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1093/2015 A.K. BASAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M. Tarique Siddiqui, Ms. Rohini Pathania, Ms. Lakshmi and Mr. Md. Faisal Khan, Advocates. versus GNCTD & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Ankit Agrawal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. The Petitioner has instituted these proceedings assailing the order dated 25th October, 2014 passed by the Block Development Officer [“BDO”], whereby his request for grant of perpetual leasehold rights in respect of a residential plot, claimed to have been allotted under the 20-Point Programme [“the Programme”], was rejected. 2. The Petitioner claims that, under the Programme, he was allotted a residential plot admeasuring 100 square yards, bearing Plot No. 640 and stated to form part of Khasra No. 103, situated in the revenue estate of Village Chhattarpur. In support of this claim, he relies upon a Patta Certificate dated 22nd March, 1985 and Form LR-37. According to the Petitioner, he constructed a residential house on the allotted plot and has remained in continuous occupation thereof since 1985. The property is presently described as House No. D-41/805, Village Chhattarpur, New This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:34:31 W.P.(C) 1093/2015 Page 2 of 6 Delhi. 3. On 9th September, 2013, the Petitioner applied for grant of perpetual leasehold rights under the policy dated 19th September, 2011 issued by the Divisional Commissioner/Secretary (Revenue), Government of NCT of Delhi, providing for grant of such rights, on an “as is where is” basis, to eligible allottees of residential house sites under the Programme. 4. As the Petitioner’s application remained undecided, he approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 4657/2014. By order dated 1st August, 2014, this Court directed the competent authority to take a decision on the Petitioner’s application within a period of three months. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 25th October, 2014 came to be passed. 5. The impugned order rejected the Petitioner’s claim principally on two grounds. First, it was held that the Petitioner was not in occupation of any plot situated in Khasra No. 103 and that the property occupied by him fell within Khasra No. 138, which had been notified as Ridge/forest land. Secondly, it was recorded that the alleged allotment could not be verified from the official records, since neither the counterfoil of Form LR-37 nor the approval of the competent authority was available in the records maintained by the office of the BDO. On this basis, the Petitioner was treated as an unauthorised occupant of Khasra No. 138. 6. The Forest Department had initially supported the first of these conclusions. In its Counter Affidavit, it stated that Khasra No. 138 of Village Chhattarpur stood “excluded by Lt. Governor from vesting in Gaon Sabha” and had been placed at the disposal of the Forest Department for the purpose of “Reserved Forest”. It was further stated that the land required demarcation and was to be handed over to the Forest Department after This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:34:31 W.P.(C) 1093/2015 Page 3 of 6 removal of all encroachments/encumbrances. 7. During the pendency of the present proceedings, disputes arose regarding the precise location and status of the property claimed by the Petitioner. Consequently, by order dated 4th November, 2024, this Court directed the officials of the Forest Department to inspect the site and file an inspection report on an affidavit, along with photographs, after carrying out the necessary exercise. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Deputy Conservator of Forests (South) filed an Additional Affidavit enclosing the inspection report. The Affidavit records that Plot No. 640/House No. D-41/805 was inspected and the site was demarcated. It further records that the Petitioner’s property is situated near Khasra No. 138 but does not form part of the notified Ridge/forest land. The Affidavit further states that the property falls outside the revenue records on the land of Village Ladha Sarai, appears to belong to some Government Department, and that the relevant revenue particulars may be ascertained from the Revenue Department. 9. The impugned order substantially proceeds on the premise that the Petitioner’s property formed part of the notified Ridge/forest land comprised in Khasra No. 138. That premise can no longer be sustained in view of the subsequent Additional Affidavit filed by the Forest Department pursuant to the directions of this Court. 10. The subsequent Affidavit, however, does not determine the precise revenue identity of the property, nor does it establish that the property forms part of Khasra No. 103, that Plot No. 640 was lawfully allotted to the Petitioner under the Programme, or that the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to grant of perpetual leasehold rights. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:34:31 W.P.(C) 1093/2015 Page 4 of 6 11. The second ground contained in the impugned order, namely, the inability of the authority to verify the alleged allotment from the records available in its office, therefore continues to remain relevant. On this aspect, the Petitioner has placed reliance on the copies of the Patta Certificate dated 22nd March, 1985 and Form LR-37 to support his claim. 12. Significantly, the impugned order does not record any finding that these documents are forged, fabricated or otherwise intrinsically unreliable. Rather, the claim appears to have been rejected principally because the corresponding counterfoil of Form LR-37 or the approval of the competent authority could not be traced in the records of the office concerned. 13. The competent authority must, therefore, undertake a comprehensive and objective verification of the Petitioner’s claim by examining the original Patta Certificate, Form LR-37, the available allotment and revenue records, the records of the erstwhile Panchayat or Gaon Sabha and such other contemporaneous material as may be relevant. 14. It is also relevant to note that, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the revenue estate of Village Chhattarpur was declared to be an urban area by Notification dated 20th November, 2019 issued under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. In Mohinder Singh through LRs. & Anr. v. Narain Singh & Ors.1, the Supreme Court has held that, upon such urbanisation, the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 cease to apply to the notified area. 15. However, the aforesaid urbanisation notification does not, by itself, confer any proprietary right upon the Petitioner. Equally, it cannot extinguish a lawful allotment or an accrued claim merely because the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:34:31 W.P.(C) 1093/2015 Page 5 of 6 statutory and administrative regime governing the land has subsequently undergone a change. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th October, 2014 is set aside and the Petitioner’s application dated 9th September, 2013 is restored for fresh consideration by the competent authority. Further, the following directions are issued: (i) Within a period of two weeks from today, the Petitioner shall produce before Respondent No. 3, the originals of the Patta Certificate dated 22nd March, 1985, Form LR-37 and all other documents upon which he seeks to rely. The competent authority shall verify the said documents, examine the revenue and other contemporaneous records, and undertake such verification as may be necessary to determine the Petitioner’s claim. (ii) The competent authority shall, while keeping in view the Additional Affidavit and inspection report filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (South), ascertain the precise revenue identity, ownership and administrative control of the subject land, including whether it vests in any Government department or authority. (iii) The competent authority shall afford the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, on the Petitioner’s entitlement to grant of perpetual leasehold rights, within eight weeks from the date on which the Petitioner submits the documents in terms of direction (i). A copy of the order shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. 17. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no final opinion on the genuineness or legal effect of the Patta Certificate, Form LR-37 or any other 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:34:31 W.P.(C) 1093/2015 Page 6 of 6 document relied upon by the Petitioner, the precise location or ownership of the subject property, the legality of the construction raised thereon, or the Petitioner’s ultimate entitlement to perpetual leasehold rights. All such aspects are expressly left open for determination by the competent authority, in accordance with law. 18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 13, 2026 nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:34:31