W.P.(C) 11625/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010373162026 + W.P.(C) 11625/2026 & CM APPLs. 53711-53712/2026 SHRI BADE LAL AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Lakhan Singh and Ms. Divya Kaur, Advocates. versus GOVERMENT OF NCT DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC with Mr. Pragya Bharti, G.P. and Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The Petitioners assert rights in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 1865, Village Bhati, South District, Delhi, admeasuring approximately 102 Bighas 9 Biswas. Their grievance is directed against the present revenue entry reflecting the land in the name of the Forest Department. They seek deletion of the entry “Van Vibhag” and restoration of the description “Gair Mumkin Abadi”, relying upon the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1974-75. The action of the Respondents is also assailed as an unlawful deprivation of property contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution. 2. According to the Petitioners, Khasra No. 1865 was recorded as “Gair 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 17/08/2026 at 12:13:57 W.P.(C) 11625/2026 Page 2 of 5 Mumkin Abadi” in 1974-75. They contend that the land subsequently came to be shown as Gaon Sabha land and thereafter in the name of the Forest Department, without any order of a competent authority or proceedings in which their rights were considered. 3. The record, however, shows that the present entry cannot be viewed as an isolated or unexplained alteration in the revenue record. Khasra No. 1865 finds specific mention in the Notification dated 2nd April, 1996 issued under Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, pursuant to which the land covered by the notification was placed at the disposal of the Forest Department. The proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer also refer to the Notification dated 24th May, 1994 issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 4. The difficulty lies in the nature of the relief sought. The entry in favour of the Forest Department is not shown to be a stray or unauthorised mutation capable of correction in isolation. It is traceable to the Notification dated 2nd April, 1996 issued under Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. So long as that Notification remains in force, the Revenue Authorities cannot be directed to delete an entry which is founded upon it. Such a direction would not be a mere correction of the revenue record; it would, in effect, bypass the consequence of a subsisting statutory notification without any adjudication on its validity or applicability. The Petitioners cannot, therefore, seek alteration of the revenue record while leaving untouched the very instrument from which the impugned entry is said to flow. 5. The reliance on the Khasra Girdawari for 1974-75 does not carry the Petitioners much further. The entry describing the land as “Gair Mumkin 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 17/08/2026 at 12:13:57 W.P.(C) 11625/2026 Page 3 of 5 Abadi” records its character or use; it does not, by itself, establish proprietary title in favour of the Petitioners. A plea under Article 300A necessarily proceeds on the existence of a legally recognisable right in the property said to have been taken away. That right must therefore be established independently of the description appearing in the revenue record. The 1974-75 entry may have evidentiary relevance, but it cannot, standing alone, override the subsequent statutory notification or establish the Petitioners’ entitlement to have the name of the Forest Department removed from the record. 6. There is a further difficulty. Petitioner No. 1, Mr. Bade Lal, has already approached the Forest Settlement Officer seeking exclusion of Khasra No. 1865 from the land covered by the forest notifications. By order dated 15th May, 2026, the Forest Settlement Officer rejected that claim after considering the relevant notifications, the report of the Revenue Authorities and the demarcation undertaken in the proceedings referred to therein. The operative part of the order records, inter alia, that Khasra No. 1865 stands specifically included in the Notification dated 2nd April, 1996, as follows: “5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted that the demarcation of these 13 villages including the Bhatti has already been carried out in OA No. 58/2013 titled Sonya Ghosh Vs. GNCTD. 6. Case was heard in detail and was reserved for order. After considering report received from the revenue authority i.e. Tehsildar (Chhatarpur), documents placed on file and submissions made by the petitioner and the respondent, following is observed: - a. That the undersigned, in the capacity of Forest Settlement Officer, is the duly competent authority to adjudicate the present matter. The Forest Settlement Officer / Additional District Magistrate has been vested with the powers of the Forest Settlement Officer by virtue of Notification No. F.10(42)- 1/PA/DCF/93/11/181-198 dated 10th May, 2006, issued in accordance with law. 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 17/08/2026 at 12:13:57 W.P.(C) 11625/2026 Page 4 of 5 b. It is not in dispute that Notifications dated 24.05.1994 issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Notification dated 02.04.1996 issued under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 are in existence and have statutory force. c. That this Court has observed, on the basis of the 1996 Notification, that area of Khasra No. 1865, Village Bhatti, New Delhi is reflected as 102-9 Abadi. 7. Thus, in view of the above, I, Sudhakar, Forest Settlement Officer, is of the considered view that: - After perusing all the documents on record thoroughly, since the land is already notified vide Notifications dated 24.05.1994 and 02.04.1996 wherein, land in- question has been specifically included in the Notification No. F.1(29)/PA/DC/DCF dated 02.04.1996 which was duly issued by the Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 pursuant to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in I.A. No. 18 & 22 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677/1985 M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. read with report of Special Task Force (STF) as per the duties assigned vide CCF’s order No. F.8(118)PA/CF/RUC/PT-IV/7709-7723 dated 28/2/2012, pursuant to the decision taken during meeting held on 02.02.2012 under chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD. The present petition is dismissed. It is announced in the open Courts & given under my hand & seal of this court on this 15th day of May, 2026.” 7. The order dated 15th May, 2026 presently stands undisturbed. The Petitioners have neither challenged that order in the present proceedings nor laid a substantive challenge to the Notification dated 2nd April, 1996. Yet the relief sought before this Court would effectively undo the consequence of both. Once the claim concerning the inclusion of Khasra No. 1865 has been placed before the authority charged with examining such rights and has resulted in an adverse order, substantially the same relief cannot be secured by seeking a consequential correction of the revenue entry while leaving that order untouched. 8. The lapse of time also cannot be ignored. The Notification on which the present entry is founded dates back to 2nd April, 1996. Nearly three decades later, the Petitioners seek deletion of its consequence from the revenue record without challenging the notification itself. Delay is not being 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 17/08/2026 at 12:13:57 W.P.(C) 11625/2026 Page 5 of 5 treated as the sole ground for declining relief, but it assumes significance when considered together with the subsisting notification and the subsequent adjudication by the Forest Settlement Officer. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the Petitioners to pursue such remedy as may be available in law against the order dated 15th May, 2026 and, if so advised, against the statutory notification or other action which forms the foundation of the impugned revenue entry. Any such proceedings shall necessarily be subject to limitation, maintainability and all other objections available to the Respondents. 10. This Court has not adjudicated the Petitioners’ asserted title to Khasra No. 1865, nor has it expressed any opinion on the validity of the Notifications dated 24th May, 1994 or 2nd April, 1996, or on the correctness of the order dated 15th May, 2026. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 13, 2026/hc 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 17/08/2026 at 12:13:57