$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010372882026 + W.P.(C) 11598/2026 & CM APPL. 53648/2026 RAJENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Mr. Piyush Goel, Mr. Rishabh Attri and Mr. Neeraj Shukla, Advocates. versus CONSOLIDATION OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The Petitioner claims rights in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 50/25, measuring 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Khera Kalan, Delhi. According to the Petitioner, the said land was erroneously mutated in the name of Brij Mohan and Sons vide Resolution No. 159 dated 27th December, 2010. The Petitioner challenged the said resolution by way of a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, being Case No. 347/2011 titled Rajender Singh v. Consolidation Officer/Tehsildar & Ors. By order dated 19th July, 2016, the Financial Commissioner set aside the aforesaid resolution qua the Petitioner and remanded the matter to the concerned SDM/Revenue Assistant with a direction to hear all the parties and dispose of the Petitioner’s application 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 18/08/2026 at 11:53:59 under Sections 73 and 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, in a time- bound manner. 2. The Petitioner’s grievance is that, despite the aforesaid directions, the concerned SDM/Revenue Assistant has not passed any order till date. 3. Ms. Harshita Nathrani, counsel appearing for the Respondents, acknowledges that the directions issued by the Financial Commissioner have not been complied with. She, however, submits that, in view of the subsequent urbanisation of the land, the SDM/Revenue Assistant may not have jurisdiction to pass any order under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh.1 4. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, irrespective of the objection raised by the Respondents with regard to jurisdiction, the Petitioner is entitled to be informed of the decision taken by the concerned authority pursuant to the directions issued by the Financial Commissioner, so as to enable him to avail of such further remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law. 5. Considering the above and the limited nature of the relief sought, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view the directions issued by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 19th July, 2016 in Case No. 347/2011, within a period of three months from today. 6. In the event the decision so taken does not resolve the Petitioner’s grievance, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be available to him 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 18/08/2026 at 11:53:59 7. The petition is disposed of along with pending application. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 13, 2026/hc 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261 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 18/08/2026 at 11:53:59