Delhi District Court
Rani Bansal vs Jai Narain Kansal And Anr on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO. DLNT030010112020
CS SCJ No. 442/2020
In the matter of:
Rani Bansal
............Plaintiff
Versus
(1) Jai Narain Khatri
(2) Sub-Registrar, Narela
Office of BDO complex
Alipur, Delhi
(3) SDM/Narela
DM Office Complex
Alipur, Delhi.
............Defendants
Order
1. Vide this order, the Court shall adjudicate the
application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
as against defendant no. 1, and shall further determine
whether the present suit warrants being put to trial.
Facts of the case in brief
2. The present suit pertains to land measuring 1 Bigha 7 Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH Biswas, forming part of Khasra No. 52/1, situated in the KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR SHARMA Date:
2026.03.14 16:38:15 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 1 of 15 revenue estate of Village Bhorgarh, North District, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
3. It is pleaded by plaintiff that Sh. Harpal Singh, having acquired rights in respect of the suit property from Sh. Sardare (son and legal heir of Sh. Chandgi), subsequently sold and transferred the suit property to the plaintiff through his attorneys, Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal and Sh. Krishan Kumar Bansal, by way of a registered Sale Deed No. 16313, Book No. I, Volume No. 4685, pages 69-72, dated 01.06.2004. Pursuant thereto, the suit property was duly mutated in favour of the plaintiff on 17.03.2004. The plaintiff alleges that on 12.06.2020, defendant no. 1, accompanied by unknown persons, attempted to sell and forcibly take possession of the suit property.
4. It is further averred that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the plaintiff was unable to obtain revenue records. Upon later inspection, it was discovered that Entry No. 1005 had been made by the Tehsildar, Narela, pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2014 passed in CM(M) No. 769/2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. On enquiry, the plaintiff gathered the following sequence of events:
(a) On 24.04.1981, the Revenue Assistant, Delhi, in Case No. 109/RA/1976, declared Sh. Chandgi as Bhumidar of land measuring 12 Bigha 18 Biswas in Khasra Nos. 52/1, 52/2, 52/3, and 53/5/1. Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.14 16:38:22 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 2 of 15
(b) An appeal (Case No. 106/ADM/LA/RA/81) was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Delhi, on 31.05.1982, affirming the order of the Revenue Assistant.
(c) A second appeal under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (Case No. 239/1982-CA) was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, on 31.03.1983, holding that the findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence. During its pendency, Sh. Chandgi expired, and his son Sh. Sardare was substituted as legal heir.
(d) On 01.08.1996, Sh. Sardare transferred land measuring 1359 sq. yards (1 Bigha 7 Biswas), being Plot Nos. 17-18 in Khasra No. 52/1, to Sh. Harpal Singh by way of agreement to sell, GPA, registered will, receipt of consideration, and delivery of possession.
(e) On 08.01.2004, the order dated 31.03.1983 was implemented in the revenue records.
(f) Defendant no. 1 thereafter filed Suit No. 156/06 for declaration and injunction, which was decreed ex parte on 10.05.2013, declaring the will of Sh. Sardare null and void and restraining defendants from creating third-party interests or dispossessing the plaintiff.
(g) Applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and subsequent appeals by Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal were dismissed on 09.12.2013 and 23.05.2014 respectively. NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 SHARMA 16:38:28 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 3 of 15
(h) A writ petition under Article 227 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 25.08.2014.
(i) A Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed on 09.02.2015, with liberty to seek appropriate remedies.
(j) An appeal filed in 2015 was withdrawn, with liberty to refile. A fresh appeal is pending before the Court of the Ld. Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, North, Rohini.
(k) Another suit for declaration, Satya Parkash v. Jai Narain Khatri, is also pending before the same court.
5. The plaintiff contends that defendant no. 1, in collusion with revenue officials, wrongly implemented the High Court's order dated 25.08.2014, showing him as Bhumidar of land in Khasra Nos. 53/5/1, 52/1, and 52/2, measuring 10 Bigha 9 Biswas. It is asserted that defendant no. 1 is not in possession of any portion of the land, and the entry is illegal, void ab initio, and without basis.
6. It is further pleaded that neither the judgment dated 10.05.2013 nor the order dated 25.08.2014 conferred any rights upon defendant no. 1 in respect of Khasra No. 52/1 or the suit property. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, by its order dated 25.08.2014, had merely dismissed the petition filed by Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal, which challenged the appellate order arising out of the rejection of his application Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 SHARMA 16:38:34 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 4 of 15 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The effect of the said judgment was only that the ex parte decree stood upheld at that stage. Importantly, the said ex parte decree did not declare as nullity the entry whereby Sh. Sardare had been recorded as Bhumidar. Thus, there was nothing in the orders of the court which declared defendant no. 1 as Bhumidar. Consequently, the entry made in the revenue records showing defendant no. 1 as Bhumidar is wholly illegal, void, and without authority.
7. It is further pleaded that by notification dated 20.11.2019, Village Bhorgarh was declared urban under Section 507 of the DMC Act and consequently challenge to entries can be made before civil court only.
8. The plaintiff avers that the judgment dated 10.05.2013 and Entry No. 1005 were obtained by fraud, as the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest was not impleaded in the earlier suit.
9. It is alleged that despite knowledge of Harpal Singh's recorded rights as Bhumidar, defendant no. 1 misled the court to secure a decree in his favour concerning land under the plaintiff's ownership and possession.
10. On 16.06.2020, the Sub-Registrar and SDM/RA were impleaded, being custodians of revenue records. Hence, the present suit has been instituted seeking the following relief:
NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. SHARMA Page No.16:38:40 5 of 15 +0530 A. Pass a decree of declaration hereby declaring that the entry No. 1005 in O-4 by the order of Tehsildar/ Narela/ CM(M) No. 769/2014 High Court dated of order dated 25.08.2014 thereby transferred the Bhumidari from Jai Narain Khatri S/o Ratan Singh R/o 510 Pana Udhan Narela Delhi number Khasra 53/5/1(3-1), 52/1(4/16). 52/2/3-3 (2-
08) is null and void.
B. Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring that the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed by the court of Ld. CJ/Central-02 in CS No. 156/2006 titled as Jai Narain Khatri Vs. Tehsildar/N.T. Narela & Ors. is null and void.
Or Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring that the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed by the court of Ms. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani, CJ/Central-02 in CS No. 156/2006 titled as Jai Narain Khatri Versus Tehsildar/N.T. Narela & Ors. Is not binding on the plaintiff.
C. Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant No. 1, his servant(s), agent(s), assign(s), heir(s) or any body claiming through or under him from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff to the extent of land measuring 1-07 falling in Khasra No. 52/1 of Village Bhorgarh shown in red colour in site plan.
Digitally signed by NITISHNITISH KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2026.03.14 16:38:45 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 6 of 15 D. Direct the defendant no. 2 not to accept the sale document in respect of Khasra No. 52/1 (1-07) of Village Bhorgarh, Delhi during the pendency of the Suit.
11. However, vide statement made on 21.02.2026, prayer B and D and later on prayer C of the prayer clause, were dropped by the plaintiff.
Written Statement of Defendant no.3/SDM
12. The written statement on behalf of defendant no. 3/SDM, Bawana, has been filed asserting that the suit is not maintainable against a public authority. It is contended that the plaintiff has approached the Court without clean hands, having suppressed material facts, and therefore the suit deserves dismissal.
12.1 It is further pleaded that upon urbanization of the village, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) became a necessary party to any proceedings concerning the land in question. The answering defendant also submits that revenue entries are fiscal in nature, do not create title, and merely reflect implementation of judicial orders. Hence, a civil suit against the SDM seeking to challenge such entries is legally misconceived. The allegation of "connivance" with private parties is specifically denied as reckless, scandalous, and unsupported by particulars.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.14 16:38:50 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 7 of 15 12.2 On merits, the answering defendant denies any wrongful implementation of the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is explained that the relevant file concerning Revenue Entry No. 1005 and the O-4 Register of 2014 was misplaced, for which an NCR was lodged, and therefore the office was unable to immediately verify the record. It is asserted that entries in revenue records are made strictly in compliance with judicial directions, and that the SDM has no discretion to override or ignore orders of competent courts.
Written Statement of defendant no.1
13. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, it is asserted that the plaintiff's alleged sale deed dated 01.06.2004 was executed pendente lite, during the subsistence of litigation in Suit No. 156/2006, and is therefore hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
It is further alleged that the sale deed was a collusive document, executed by the plaintiff's husband and brother- in-law, both of whom were parties to the earlier proceedings, and that it was designed to defeat the defendant's rights in the property.
13.1 The defendant relies upon the decree dated 10.05.2013 as well as order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed on 25.08.2014, as the lawful foundation of his mutation and ownership. Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 16:38:56 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 8 of 15 13.2 On merits, the defendant denied the plaintiff's claim of purchase from Harpal Singh, asserting that the land is ancestral and has always remained in his possession. The defendant no.1 contended that the mutation entries relied upon by the plaintiff was carried out in the name of a deceased person.
It is contended that Sardare, being only a tenant, had no transferable rights and thus, the plaintiff had acquired no interest in the property.
Application u/o 12 rule 6 CPC
14. By way of the present application, the plaintiff submits that defendant Jai Narain Khatri, in his written statement, has categorically admitted that the plaintiff was not a party to Suit No. 174/04 (renumbered as Suit No. 156/2006), titled "Jai Narayan Khatri vs. Tehsildar & Ors.", which was filed in respect of land falling in Khasra Nos. 53/5/1 (3-1), 52/1, and 52/2/3-3, measuring 10 Bigha 9 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhorgarh. The decree passed in the said suit is precisely the one challenged in the present proceedings.
It is stated in the application that, the present suit pertains specifically to land measuring 1 Bigha 7 Biswas, being part of Khasra No. 52/1, situated in the same revenue estate, i.e., a distinct portion of the suit property. It is further urged that the admission of defendant no. 1 is unambiguous, inasmuch as he has acknowledged that the plaintiff was not Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 16:39:01 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 9 of 15 a party to the earlier suit. On the strength of such admission, the plaintiff contends that no further evidence is required to be led in order to establish her case. Accordingly, it is prayed that judgment may be pronounced under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of the said admission alone, and the present application be allowed.
15. No reply to the present application u/o XII Rule 6 CPC was filed on behalf of the defendants.
16. However, as relief prayed in prayer no. B, C and D were dropped by the plaintiff, the present application stands dismissed.
It requires due mention that the prayers were dropped particularly due to the reason that the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed by the court of Ld. CJ/Central-02 in CS No. 156/2006, were set aside in appeal RCA No.1/2024 by this court itself.
Whether the suit is required to be put to trial
17. As emerged from the above, the plaintiff has pressed only one relief which is directed against defendant no.3 per- se, in the present case viz. Declaration of mutation entry No. 1005 in O-4 by the order of Tehsildar/ Narela/ CM(M) No. 769/2014 High Court dated of order dated 25.08.2014 as null and void.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.03.14 16:39:06 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 10 of 15
18. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed by the court of Ld. CJ/Central-02 in CS No. 156/2006 had only set aside the Will executed by one Sardare but did not declare the mutation entry 08.01.2004, vide which Sh. Sardare was recorded as the Bhumidar of land bearing Khasra Nos. 52/1, 52/2/3, 52/3, and 53/5/1 in Village Bhorgarh, as null and void.
It is further contended that the as the suit was decreed ex-parte, application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was made by Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal which was dismissed and appeal therefrom was also dismissed and thereafter, a writ petition under Article 227 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 25.08.2014. It is contended that the net effect of such dismissal was that the ex-parte decree of Ld. Trial Court was maintained. It is contended that as the judgment and decree of Ld. Civil Judge (02), Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi had not decided the Bhumidari and no directions were given for changing mutation entry, the act of Tehsildar in carrying out change in mutation entry is bad in law.
19. Now, it is evident from the bare perusal of the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed by the court of Ld. CJ/Central-02 in CS No. 156/2006 as well as by the orders on application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, appeal therefrom and thereafter, on writ petition under Article 227 dated 25.08.2014 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that neither the decree dated 10.05.2013 nor the order of the Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 16:39:11 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 11 of 15 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 25.08.2014 adjudicated upon the question of Bhumidari rights in respect of Khasra No. 52/1 Village Bhorgarh, Delhi. The earlier proceedings were confined to the challenge of an ex parte decree and its affirmation, and did not contain any declaration conferring Bhumidari rights upon defendant no. 1.
20. It is further evident that the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 25.08.2014 merely dismissed the petition of Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal arising out of rejection of his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The import of that order was only that the ex-parte decree stood upheld at that stage. Crucially, the said decree itself did not declare as nullity the entry whereby Sh. Sardare had been recorded as Bhumidar. In the ex-parte decree, the Ld. Court of CJ-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, had held that the Will executed by Sh. Sardare were null and void, however the mutation entry existing in the name of Sardare was not disturbed though a declaration was sought against the said mutation entry also.
21. It is relevant herein to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Radhiben v. Surtan Vesta Damor (2007 AIR (Guj) 147). The Hon'ble High Court held that while civil courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in matters where authorities of limited or exclusive jurisdiction have acted, such restraint is not absolute. Where it is demonstrated that the authority has acted in violation of Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 SHARMA 16:39:17 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 12 of 15 law, exceeded jurisdiction, or disregarded principles of natural justice, the civil court is bound to intervene and provide corrective relief.
22. Applying this principle, once it is found that the revenue authority altered the entry without any judicial declaration of Bhumidari rights, and further that the decree relied upon has itself been set aside, the civil court cannot abdicate its jurisdiction. On the contrary, it is duty-bound to exercise its powers to rectify the illegality and protect the substantive rights of the parties.
23. In the instant case, defendant no. 3, in its written statement, has explained that the relevant file concerning Revenue Entry No. 1005 and the O-4 Register of 2014 was misplaced, for which an NCR was lodged, and therefore the office was unable to verify the record. It has further been asserted that entries in revenue records are made strictly in compliance with judicial directions, and that the SDM has no discretion to override or ignore orders of competent courts.
24. In the considered opinion of this court, this explanation, while intended to justify the entry, in fact underscores the infirmity in the record. The mutation entry was purportedly stated to have been made on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 25.08.2014. However, a careful reading of that order reveals that it arose from dismissal of a petition under Article 227 challenging NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.03.14 CS SCJ No.442/20 SHARMAPage No. 13 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. 16:39:24 +0530 of 15 rejection of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The order nowhere discussed Bhumidari rights, nor did it contain any direction for alteration of mutation entries. To construe the said order as conferring authority upon the Tehsildar to alter the revenue record is a clear mis-interpretation.
25. The mutation entry made by the Tehsildar, purportedly stated to be on the basis of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 25.08.2014, is therefore without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The SDM's assertion that entries are made strictly in compliance with judicial directions collapses, because the judicial direction in question did not exist in relation to the suit property. Thus, alteration of the revenue record concerning the suit property without any judicial declaration of Bhumidari rights constitutes such illegality.
26. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is nothing which requires factual adjudication and there is no triable issue. The material facts stand admitted, the relevant register itself is reported to be missing, and the only foundation for the impugned mutation entry is a purported reliance on the order dated 25.08.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which on its plain terms did not adjudicate Bhumidari rights nor direct alteration of revenue records.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.14 16:39:29 +0530 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 14 of 15
27. As an upshot of the above, this court is of the view that the suit of the plaintiff can be decreed under order XII rule 6 CPC. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed and the Mutation entry No. 1005 in O-4 by the order of Tehsildar/Narela transferring the Bhumidhari to Jai Narain Khatri S/o Ratan Singh in Kh. Number 53/5/1 (3-1), 52/1 (4-16), 52/2/3-3 (2-08), insofar as it relates to the suit property, is declared null and void.
28. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR Pronounced in the open court KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
today on 14.03.2026. 2026.03.14 16:39:36 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/14.03.2026 CS SCJ No.442/20 Rani Bansal Vs Jai Narain Khatri and Anr. Page No. 15 of 15