KARTIKAY MUDGAL v. THE DEPUTY MAGISTRATE, NORTH EAST & ORS.
W.P.(C)/11287/2026 · 2026-08-07
Sanjeev Narula
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15208 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15208 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
W.P.(C) 11287/2026 Page 1 of 5
$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010362782026 + W.P.(C) 11287/2026 & CM APPLs. 52202/2026, 52203/2026
KARTIKAY MUDGAL
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shivender Kumar Sharma, Advocate with Petitioner-in-person. versus
THE DEPUTY MAGISTRATE, NORTH EAST & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Ms. Sanskriti Nautiyal, Advocates. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R %
07.08.2026
1. The Petitioner seeks correction of the revenue record relating to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 814/219, 820/219 and 826/220, situated in Village Sikdarpur, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. He also seeks mutation of the land in his favour and challenges the existing entries reflecting the names of M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. and M/s G.D. Rathi Steels Ltd.
2. The Petitioner traces his claim in respect of the subject land through his late grandfather, Mr Surender Narain, who, along with his brothers, is stated to have been recorded as a cultivator thereof. According to the Petitioner, the subject land was leased to Rathi Steel Rolling Mills pursuant 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 12/08/2026 at 11:17:41
W.P.(C) 11287/2026 Page 2 of 5
to a lease deed dated 16th February, 1968. The tenancy thereafter continued with K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., following the bifurcation of Rathi Steel Rolling Mills. Rent is stated to have been paid until 1st December, 2000, following which, on account of non-payment of rent, late Sh. Surender Narain instituted eviction proceedings in the year 2006, against K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 3. It is the Petitioner’s case that, during the aforesaid eviction proceedings, K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. informed the Additional Rent Controller that the subject land had been mutated in the names of K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. and G.D. Rathi Steels Ltd., purportedly pursuant to an order of this Court. It was also stated by K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. that the subject land had subsequently been surrendered to the Delhi Development Authority1 pursuant to proceedings before the Supreme Court. 4. The Petitioner thereafter sought information from the revenue authorities regarding the basis of the entries. The matter ultimately reached the Central Information Commission2.
By order dated 22nd June, 2016, the CIC recorded the Petitioner’s grievance that the revenue record referred to a High Court order without bearing a signature. It further recorded the agreement of the parties to meet on 28th June, 2016, for examining the defect in the record with reference to the said order, pursuing necessary follow-up action and attempting to resolve the matter. 5. It is further stated that, thereafter, the then Tehsildar, Shahdara, issued notices to K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. and G.D. Rathi Steels Ltd. seeking production of the order purportedly forming the basis of the mutation
1 “DDA” 2 “CIC” 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 12/08/2026 at 11:17:41
W.P.(C) 11287/2026 Page 3 of 5
entries. The Tehsildar is also stated to have addressed a communication dated 13th October, 2016, to the Registrar of this Court seeking verification of the existence of the said order. According to the Petitioner, the aforesaid exercise did not culminate in any final decision, and the relevant file was subsequently stated to have become untraceable. 6. Thereafter, the Petitioner and his mother submitted an application dated 12th January, 2021 before the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara, seeking mutation of their names in respect of the subject land and determination of the authenticity of the existing mutation entries. The said application is stated to have remained undecided despite subsequent reminders. 7. Counsel for the Petitioner also points out that the existing revenue entry refers to an order purportedly forming the basis of the mutation, but does not bear the signature or date of the authority by whom the entry was made. He further contends that the said order is not available in the revenue records and that its particulars are not discernible from the entry. 8. At this stage, this Court does not consider it appropriate to examine the validity of the existing revenue entries or the Petitioner’s entitlement to mutation.
The persons in whose favour the entries presently stand are not before the Court, and any determination affecting those entries must necessarily follow notice to them. Further, a mutation entry by itself neither creates nor extinguishes title, and any dispute which travels beyond the permissible scope of revenue proceedings must be left to the forum competent to determine such rights. 9. The aspect which does warrant intervention is that the Petitioner’s application dated 12th January, 2021, has remained undecided. 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 12/08/2026 at 11:17:41
W.P.(C) 11287/2026 Page 4 of 5
application raises a pointed issue as to the basis and authority for the existing revenue entries. The record further shows that this question had engaged the revenue authorities as far back as 2016, yet no final decision appears to have been taken. In these circumstances, the matter cannot be permitted to remain in abeyance any longer. 10. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner shall take up the application dated 12th January, 2021 and deal with it under the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 applicable to correction of, or disputes concerning, entries in the revenue record. The authority shall examine the original revenue record and ascertain the basis on which the impugned entries came to be made, including the order or other instrument, if any, from which they are stated to originate. 11. If the entries purport to have been made pursuant to an order of this Court or any other judicial authority, the existence, particulars and contents of such order shall be verified from the appropriate record before any conclusion is reached. The absence of a document from the presently available revenue file shall not, by itself, be treated as determinative either way. 12.
Before passing any order affecting the existing entries, notice shall be issued to K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., G.D. Rathi Steels Ltd. and to every other person or authority whose recorded interest may be affected. If the revenue record discloses any interest claimed by or through the DDA, the DDA shall also be afforded an opportunity to place its position on record. 13. Upon completing the aforesaid exercise, the competent revenue authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with the statutory scheme. If it finds that the controversy involves adjudication of title or any 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 12/08/2026 at 11:17:41
W.P.(C) 11287/2026 Page 5 of 5
issue which falls outside the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities, it shall record that conclusion and leave the parties to pursue the remedy available before the competent forum, rather than returning any finding beyond its jurisdiction. 14. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks from today. This Court has expressed no opinion on the correctness of the existing revenue entries or upon the competing rights claimed in respect of the subject land. 15. The petition, along with the pending application(s), is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 7, 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 12/08/2026 at 11:17:41