Delhi High Court - Orders
Hans U Nagar vs Sushma Aggarwal & Ors on 23 September, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~4 & 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024
HANS U NAGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Amiet Andlay & Mr. Arun Kr Sharma
& Mr. Prakash Chandra Bawari, Advs.
versus
SUSHMA AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Manish Tiwari, Ms. Sonakshi Singh
and Ms. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Advs.
for R-1.
Mr. Tushar Sannu & Ms. Shaoni Das,
Adv. for GNCTD.
5 AND
+ LPA 792/2024, CM APPL. 46871/2024, CM APPL. 60708/2025 &
CM APPL. 60710/2025
DR.HANS U NAGAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Amiet Andlay & Mr. Arun Kr Sharma
& Mr. Prakash Chandra Bawari, Advs.
versus
SUSHMA AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Manish Tiwari, Ms. Sonakshi Singh
and Ms. Shashi Bhushan Nagar,
Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Tushar Sannu & Ms. Shaoni Das,
Adv. for GNCTD.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
ORDER
% 23.09.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 1 of 8This 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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36 CM APPL. 60710/2025 (for delay) in LPA 792/2024
2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the reply to the appeal.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 LPA 792/2024 & CM APPL. 46871/2024, CM APPL. 60708/2025
4. The present contempt petition CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 has been filed by the Petitioner - Hans Nagar under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Respondents, alleging contempt of order dated 14th August, 2024 passed by Division bench of this Court in LPA 792/2024 (hereinafter 'impugned order').
5. Vide the impugned order, Respondent No.2- Sh. Dharmendra, Chief Secretary, GNCTD, Respondent No.3 - Ms. Mahima Madan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehrauli, and Respondent No.4- Sh. Suman Lata, Sub-Registrar- Hauz Khas, had been directed to maintain status quo in respect of farm No. 5, 139, Village Gadaipur, New Delhi - 110030, admeasuring 12 Bigha- 02 Biswa in Khasra No. 170/5, 171/2, 171/3, 184/1, 185/1 situated in the revenue estate of Village Gadaipur, Tehsil Hauz Khas (Mehrauli) New Delhi (hereinafter 'the land').
6. A brief background of the present contempt petition is that Mrs. Ida Nagar was originally the owner of the land. She had three sons- Mr. Hans Nagar, Mr. Ronald Nagar, and Mr. John Nagar.
7. After her demise, a settlement was entered into between the brothers, and a consent decree was passed on 12th April, 2012 in suit C.S(OS) No. 666/2008.
8. The said consent decree is presently the subject matter of challenge by CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 2 of 8 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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36 Mr. Hans Nagar in FAO(OS) 3/2019 and the same is stated to be pending adjudication. In the meantime, Mr. Ronald Nagar had sold the land vide sale deed dated 27th December, 2019 to Ms. Sushma Aggarwal, who is Respondent No. 1 in the present contempt petition. This sale had been challenged by Mr. Hans Nagar in C.S(OS) No. 236/2021, however, there is no interim order which is stated to have been passed in the said suit.
9. In the meantime, Notification dated 21st November, 2019 was issued by the Government of National Capital Territory (hereinafter, Notification dated 21st November, 2019), under Section 507A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'DMC Act, 1957') By the aforesaid notification, the land in question was de-notified, and it was declared that the same would now be urbanised.
10. After the Notification dated 21st November, 2019 was issued, a conditional decree dated 6th January, 2020 was passed by the Revenue Assistant. In the meantime, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter 'SDM') had initiated proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and an order dated 15th June, 2022 was passed by the SDM, restoring the said land to the Gaon Sabha, despite the said land being declared as an urbanised land by the aforesaid notification.
11. These aforesaid two orders i.e., conditional decree order dated 6th January 2020 and order of SDM dated 15th June 2022 were challenged by Respondent No.1- Ms. Sushma Aggarwal in W.P. (C) 15040/2023 titled Sushma Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors., wherein vide order dated 15th April 2024, passed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court, the aforesaid two orders were quashed. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:
CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 3 of 8This 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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36 "18. The conditional decree dated 06.01.2020 and the order dated 15.06.2022, had apparently been passed after the notification was issued on 21.11.2019 and as such cannot withstand judicial scrutiny in view of the aforesaid notification as also the judgement of the Supreme court in Mohinder Singh (supra). The relevant para of Mohinder Singh (supra) is extracted hereunder:-.
"36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non-est and loses its legal significance. " · Since, the issue is one of applicability of law, this Court need not examine the matter on merits. Accordingly, applying the ratio of Mohinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 06.01.2020 as also the order dated 15.06.2022 impugned by the petitioner herein ought to be and quashed and set aside and declared to be non-est in law.
19. It is not disputed that the respondent no. 4 has already filed a suit in respect of the subject property in which the petitioner has also been made a party defendant and which is pending adjudication before the Trial Court/Competent Civil Court. Thus, the interests of both parties is subsequently represented before a Competent Court exercising Civil jurisdiction.
20. In such circumstances it is made clear that the aforesaid order has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of any of the parties taken as to be taken before the learned Trial Court.CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 4 of 8
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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36
21. The petition is disposed of in above terms with liberty sought by the petitioner in respect of prayer (B) granted."
12. This order dated 15th April 2024, passed by the ld. Single Judge has been challenged in the present LPA 792/2024.
13. In the LPA, the vide order dated 14 August 2024, status quo with respect to the land was directed to be maintained in the following terms:
"CM APPL. 46874/20241. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA 792/2024 & CM 46871/2024, CM 46872/2024, CM 46873/2024
2. During the course of arguments, Mr Amiet Andlaw, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, relied upon the judgment of a division bench of this Court, rendered in Subnam Gupta (Sabnam Gupta) vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024: DHC: 3082-DB.
2.1 According to Mr Andlaw, the ratio of the said decision would apply, since proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 had commenced prior to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (dead) Through L.Rs. and Anr. vs. Narain Singh and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261.
3. Issue notice.
3.1. Mr Tushar Shannu accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.s 2 to 4.
4. Notice shall issue to the respondent no.1 via all permissible modes, including email.
5. This aspect of the matter will be examined on the next date of hearing, along with the application for condonation of delay.
6. Meanwhile, the respondent no.s 2 to 4 will maintain the status quo as it is obtaining today.
7. List the matter on 04.12.2024."
CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 5 of 8This 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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36
14. As can be seen from the above, directions were also issued to Respondent No. 2 to 4 i.e., the GNCTD, the SDM and the Sub-Registrar, Hauz Khas to maintain status quo of the land.
15. It is pertinent to note that no order was passed against Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 was also not represented in the Court when the interim order was passed.
16. In the meantime, after the interim order directing maintenance of status quo was passed, Respondent No. 1 executed two sale deeds dated 30th August, 2024 which were registered on 19th September 2024.
17. The two sale deeds were executed in favour of one M/s. Seraglio Villas Private Limited. and M/s Morbaagh Villas Private Limited., (hereinafter 'two purchasers'), both being represented through one Mr. Babu Ram.
18. In terms of the said two sale deeds, the subject land has been sold by Respondent No.1 to the two purchasers for Rs. 5 crores each i.e., for a total of Rs. 10 crores.
19. Thus, the Petitioner has now filed the contempt petition alleging violation of the status quo order by the Respondents.
20. A short affidavit has been filed by Mr. Tushar Sannu, ld. Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, recording clearly that the registration of these sale deeds was inadvertently not in knowledge of the Sub-Registrar as the officials had not brought the said order to the knowledge of the Sub-Registrar.
21. Accordingly, a show cause notice has been issued to the concerned officials, Ms. Jyoti Kumari Pal and Mr. Harmeet Singh for their dereliction of duty. In any event, the authorities have agreed to abide by whatever orders are passed by this Court.
22. Before proceeding further in the CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 and LPA CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 6 of 8 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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36 792/2024, it is to be noted that there are two subsequent purchasers of the subject land.
23. The two purchasers would be affected by any order, which may be passed by this Court. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the said two purchasers ought to be issued notice, and called upon to place their stand before this Court.
24. Accordingly, issue notice to the two purchasers M/s. Seraglio Villas Private Limited. and M/s Morbaagh Villas Private Limited., through Mr. Babu Ram, who is their Authorised Representative.
25. The two purchasers shall be impleaded as Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 and in LPA 792/2024. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within one week and notice be issued in the contempt petition to them.
26. CM APPL. 60708/2025 in LPA 792/2024 is the application filed by the Respondent No.1- Sushma Aggarwal, for vacation of status quo.
27. Mr. Dutt, ld. Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court, the order dated 19th September, 2025 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 27051/2025 which reads as under:
"1) Delay condoned.
2) After hearing learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we find no reason and ground to interfere in this special leave petition.
3) However, the application for vacation of the order impugned, if any, filed, it may be taken up uninfluenced of pendency of the reference before the larger Bench.
4) In view of the above, the special leave petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 7 of 8
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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36
28. In view of the above order, the application for vacation of status quo is to be considered.
29. The newly impleaded Respondents are permitted to file their affidavits on record, if so advised, in both these matters i.e,CONT.CAS (C) 1601/2024 and LPA 792/2024.
30. List before Joint Registrar for completion of service and the affidavits, if any, on 11th November, 2025.
31. List before Court on 8th December, 2025.
32. The said two purchasers shall be served by the Petitioner dasti, as well.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2025 dj/sm CONT.CAS(C) 1601/2024 & LPA 792/2024 Page 8 of 8 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 25/09/2025 at 22:01:36