W.P.(C) 14/2024 $~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14/2024 CHAND SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Robin Ratnakar David & Mr. Nihar Baijal, Advocates. versus SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 24.04.2025 W.P.(C) 14/2024 & CM APPL. 23972/2025 (for stay on ongoing construction) 1. The reliefs sought in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, are as follows:- “I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other Appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to demolish the enroachment on Khasra No. 172/5 i.e. Public land/gram sabha of village RAWTA; II. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other Appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to Demolish encroachment on Public Passage/Rasta and make public passage as per massavi 1971-72 and also to remove the debris from the public path;” 2. The petitioner has now filed CM APPL. 23972/2025, in which he assails the ongoing construction of a road in Khasra No. 157 & 163 of Village Rawta, New Delhi. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of Khasra No. 172/1, 172/2, 172/3, and 172/4 in the said village. His complaint in the writ petition is that Khasra No. 172/5 has been encroached upon, and that a public way/rasta in Khasra No. 163 and 157 has also been encroached upon. 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 28/04/2025 at 14:41:00 W.P.(C) 14/2024 3. In the application, it is stated that the road in front of the petitioner’s house has resultantly been reduced in width. Construction of the road is challenged on the ground that “threatens to make the encroachments permanent”. 4. At the very outset, it appears that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in his individual capacity. The area in which he claims encroachment is being undertaken is Gaon Sabha land. However, the Gaon Sabha is not before the Court, and has not even been made the party respondent. The petitioner does not claim ownership of any land in issue or blockage of ingress and egress of his house, neither does he claim that amenities of light and air are being affected. 5. In these circumstances, Mr. Robin Ratnakar David, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition, and file a Public Interest Litigation [“PIL”] for the same relief, as the present writ petition does not contain necessary averments, affidavits and other formalities required of a PIL. 6. The writ petition is taken on Board, and dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a PIL for the same relief. 7. Naturally, this Court is not required to make any observation with regard to the maintainability or merits of any PIL that the petitioner may choose to file. 8. The next date of hearing i.e. 08.09.2025 stands cancelled. PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 24, 2025/‘pv/AD’/ 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 28/04/2025 at 14:41:00