$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10180/2026 RAJ PAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. N.S. Vasisht and Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chitvan Singhal, SPC, with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Bhardwaj, G.P. for R-1. Mr. Anubhav Gupta. Panel Counsel (Civil) GNCTD for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 24.07.2026 1. The Petitioners assert that they are Bhumidars of the land comprised in Khasra No. 368/2 (4-05) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Rangpuri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. 2. The limited grievance of the Petitioners arises from the non- compliance with the directions issued by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 21st April, 2022 in Case No. 270/2019 instituted by the Petitioners, which was disposed of in the following terms: “1. Heard the parties. The Respondent G.S. did not file any reply despite being given many opportunities since February 2020 and on four occasions i.e. on 28.02.2020, 18.02.2021, 31.08.2021 and 10.12.2021 Respondent G.S. had sought time to file reply but till now unable to file any reply. It seems that Respondent G.S. is not intending to file any reply. Accordingly, the matter shall be proceeded ex-parte. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:32:53 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not been served before passing of the impugned orders, which is not acceptable. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 04.06.2007 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Revenue Assistant with the directions to give an opportunity of being heard to all the interested parties and pass a speaking orders accordingly. 3. File be consigned to record room after completion.” 3. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Financial Commissioner set aside the order dated 4th June, 2007, passed by the concerned Revenue Assistant/SDM, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, with a direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties and thereafter pass a speaking order. He submits that despite the lapse of more than four years, the concerned Revenue Assistant/SDM has failed to decide the matter. 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that substantial time has elapsed since the passing of the order by the Financial Commissioner, this Court is of the opinion that the concerned revenue authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The concerned Revenue Assistant/SDM is directed to decide Application No. 33/2002, in accordance with the directions contained in the order dated 21st April, 2022, passed by the Financial Commissioner. 6. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of four weeks from today. 7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 8. Needless to state, as already directed by the Financial Commissioner, 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 27/07/2026 at 15:32:53 an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to all interested parties before passing a fresh order. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 24, 2026 as 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 27/07/2026 at 15:32:53