$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 172/2026, CM APPL. 35640/2026 and CM APPL. 35641/2026 RAVINDER KUMAR AND ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bijendra Kr. Gautam, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva and Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. The present appeal, filed under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, is directed against the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned DJ-01, South, Delhi in CS DJ-8713/2016, whereby the Trial Court, while considering the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed on behalf of the respondent/defendant, allowed the said application and permitted the temporary fencing around the property relating to land measuring about 2 bighas out of Khasra no. 1161/1 (min), situated in village Mehrauli, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) in order to protect the same. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that an appeal came to be filed before this Court, when on 26.08.2015, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case bearing No. CS (OS) 2187/2014, passed the following orders: “1. The present application has been filed by the defendant praying inter alia for modification of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 25.7.2014, passed in IA No.13495/2014. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:44:16 2. On 25.7.2014, an ex-parte ad interim order was passed directing the defendant to maintain status-quo with regard to possession and construction on the subject land measuring 17 bighas 17 biswas situated in Khasra No.1161/1 in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli, Delhi. 3. Mr.Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/DDA states that a written statement has already been filed by him. In the written statement, DDA has averred that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the subject land which was re- claimed by DDA after removing unauthorized construction on 15.7.2014. The subject land is stated to be Government land and the Gaon Sabha of Village Mehrauli had transferred it to DDA, vide Notification dated 20.8.1974. After removal of the unauthorized construction existing in the area, as on 15.7.2014, DDA claims to have re-claimed 2000 sq.yards that forms a part of the Smriti Van. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant/DDA states that the entire Smriti Van has been bounded by a boundary wall, except for the part where the unauthorized encroachment was removed on 15.7.2014, and there is an urgency in the mater, as failure to raise a boundary wall on the subject land is likely to result in fresh encroachment. 5. Notice was issue on this application on 8.12.2014. A reply is stated to have been filed by the defendants. However, the same is not on record. A copy of the reply is handed over in court for perusal. The averments made by the defendant in the application have been denied by the plaintiffs and they have asserted that the suit property does not belong to the DDA and nor is it a part of the Smriti Van. Further, the plaintiffs have volunteered to construct the boundary wall on the subject land at their own cost. 6. Instead of burdening the plaintiffs with the expense of raising a boundary wall on the subject land, it is deemed appropriate to modify the order dated 25.7.2014, to the extent that 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 25/07/2026 at 11:44:16 defendant/DDA is permitted to raise a boundary wall on the subject land, in continuation to the boundary wall already raised in the area so that the same is protected from encroachment from other quarters.” 3. The aforesaid order was carried in appeal by way of FAO (OS) 496/2015, which came to be decided on 29.03.2016. Vide the said order, while noting that the suit was transferred to the District Court on account of change of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal by directing as under: “9. The assertions of the parties, as noted above, would show that the parties have raised rival claims with regard to the title and possession of the suit property. It is an admitted position that the DDA has effected demolition of construction which the plaintiffs claimed to have raised thereon. The above assertions establish that as on date, there is no construction standing on the plot which is the subject matter of the lis. 10. The plaintiff has to establish title of the property which would have to abide by the adjudication in the suit in accordance with law. Before us, in support of their claim of title, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel makes a reference to only some Khasra Girdawaris. DDA disputes the averments and reliance. 11. The appellants have yet to prove and establish possession as well as construction on the subject land. 12. It cannot be disputed therefore, that it is imperative that status quo is maintained on the subject land in order to preserve the same which has to enure to the benefit of the real owner of the property. 13. By the order dated 25th July, 2014, the DDA was only directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and construction on the suit land. The order dated 26th of 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 25/07/2026 at 11:44:16 August 2015 directs the DDA to raise a construction of a wall on the property while maintaining the order of status quo with regard to the possession and construction on the suit land. The raising of the wall would undoubtedly preserve the property from third party encroachment as has been apprehended by both the parties. It also ensures that even the plaintiffs are not able to misuse the land in any manner as apprehended by the DDA. 14. The equities of the case and interests of justice demands that both parties maintain status quo qua possession and construction on the suit land. Therefore, we hereby direct so. 15. We have noted above that the learned Single Judge has noted that the boundary wall which shall be constructed is in continuation of the existing boundary wall. In order to ensure clarity before the court, the DDA shall file a site plan of the proposed boundary wall in the Registry of this court within one week. DDA shall raise the construction after filing the plan in the Registry. 16. In case any objection is raised with regard to the placement of the boundary wall, the same shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law and considering the rival contentions. 17. The learned trial judge shall adjudicate upon the injunction application and the objections uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.” 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants further informs that the Trial Court on 03.08.2017, while noting the aforesaid orders, directed the demarcation of the suit property, however, the exercise is yet to be carried out. Indisputably, till date, no boundary wall has been constructed around the suit property. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:44:16 5. The aforesaid two orders were passed by this Court is that they were passed in light of the fact that the suit property is a vacant parcel of land and is prone to encroachment. Accordingly, in order to protect the suit property until the rival claims were looked into by the Court, the aforesaid directions came to be passed. 6. The present order, however, is nothing but only a reiteration of the said orders while directing temporary fencing of the suit property. 7. Needless to observe that, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the said orders, however, it is clarified that temporary fencing is subject to the claims of the appellants/plaintiffs in the subject suit. The plaintiffs shall be at liberty to approach the Trial Court with the relief of demarcation as directed earlier. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms alongwith the pending applications. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 21, 2026 na 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 25/07/2026 at 11:44:16