Delhi High Court : 'No Legal Right to Possession' Over Yamuna Floodplains, Orders Removal of Encroachments in Public Interest: “Land Meant for Ecological Restoration”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Delhi High Court, Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma, dismissed a writ petition concerning the occupation of agricultural land situated on the Yamuna floodplains, holding that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants with no lawful entitlement to the land. The Court recorded that the land is part of Zone ‘O’ of the Yamuna riverbed and is earmarked for ecological and public restoration projects. The Court observed, “The petitioners have no legal right to claim possession and right to cultivation over the subject agricultural land.” The Court imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the petitioners for filing a frivolous petition and for causing wastage of judicial time.
The petitioner had approached the Court seeking acceptance of lease money by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and permission to construct boundary walls on the disputed agricultural land. The Court dismissed the petition after concluding that the matter had already been adjudicated and that the land falls within a zone requiring ecological protection under statutory and judicial mandates.
The petitioner, Sacchi Shuruaat Sewa Samiti, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of 32 farmers who claimed allotment of agricultural land situated in Khasra Nos. 16 and 24, North Chiraga Somali, Khattewala Rakba, Marginal Band, presently known as Shastri Park, Delhi. The petition stated that the allotments were made by the DDA in 1962 in lieu of land acquired from the farmers for the construction of the Indraprastha Power Plant. The petitioner claimed that the allottees regularly deposited lease money until eviction proceedings were initiated in 1991 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
An eviction order was passed on 20 August 1991 by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act. The petitioners filed appeals under Section 9 of the Act, and the Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 18 November 1995, set aside the eviction orders, observing that the show cause notices issued were defective and that the DDA had not cancelled the leases before initiating eviction proceedings.
The petitioner contended that despite this, the DDA subsequently refused to accept lease money and was creating conditions to justify fresh eviction proceedings. Additionally, the petitioners submitted that the DDA was preventing the construction of a boundary wall to secure the agricultural land from encroachment, roaming cattle, and wild animals.
In response, the DDA submitted that the petitioner-society had not disclosed complete and verifiable details of the 32 allottees it claimed to represent and noted that the Appellate Authority’s decision was limited to 26 individuals, of whom only eight matched the names listed in the current petition.
On merits, the DDA submitted that the subject land was government land and that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants. It was argued that the land, situated within Zone ‘O’ of the Yamuna floodplains, was allotted on humanitarian grounds on a temporary lease that expired in 1964. The DDA contended that the petitioners remained in illegal possession beyond the expiry of the lease period.
The DDA submitted that the area in question is part of the Yamuna Vanasthali project, undertaken for the ecological restoration of the Yamuna floodplain. Counsel for the DDA submitted that the encroachments are obstructing critical eco-restoration efforts mandated by the Supreme Court, the National Green Tribunal, and the Master Plan for Delhi-2021.
At the final hearing, counsel for the DDA also submitted that the issues raised in the petition were res judicata, citing earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court in Mangal v. Union of India and Chander Bhan v. Delhi Development Authority. It was submitted that the present petition was a successive litigation filed by parties related to those involved in the prior cases and amounted to an abuse of judicial process.
The DDA submitted site maps and photographs showing the current status of the land and highlighted that the petitioners’ occupation was impeding the progress of State-funded projects meant to restore the Yamuna floodplain and protect Delhi’s environment.
Justice Sharma recorded that the matter related to the same parcel of agricultural land already adjudicated upon in Mangal and Chander Bhan. The Court stated, “The present petition pertains to the same parcel of agricultural land and arises out of the same ejectment proceedings... which have already been comprehensively dealt with and adjudicated upon by this Court in Mangal and Chander Bhan.”
The Court referred to the findings in Mangal, where it was recorded, “No lease was ever executed in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners, and they were allowed to cultivate the land on an year-to-year basis, for which evidently no rent was even paid by them.”
Justice Sharma observed that the land falls under Zone ‘O’ of the Yamuna floodplains and is subject to orders by the Supreme Court, National Green Tribunal, and this Court requiring the area to be cleared of unauthorised encroachments. The Court recorded, “The subject agricultural land although described as ‘agricultural land’ is plainly encompassed in the Yamuna River bed areas and it is required to be rid of encroachments, in the larger public interest.”
The Court observed that the land is part of the Yamuna Vanasthali project, a public project undertaken by the DDA to restore the Yamuna floodplain. The Court stated, “The land in dispute is meant for larger public interest and the petitioners cannot claim any vested rights therein to continue to use and occupy the same for cultivation.”
The Court further recorded that no cultivation was taking place at the site, stating, “The petitioners are not even able to demonstrate as to how much land is now left or remains unused, which they claim to keep occupying for cultivation.”
The Court also noted that the petition was a re-litigation of issues already settled, observing, “Such conduct demonstrates a blatant disregard not only for the sanctity of the prior decisions of this Court, but also for the principle of finality in litigation.” The Court stated that the principle of res judicata applies equally to writ proceedings and that allowing successive petitions on the same issue would undermine the judicial process.
The Court dismissed the writ petition. The order stated, “Resultantly, the present writ petition stands dismissed for being devoid of any merits, and the petitioner is burdened with costs of Rs.10,000 to be paid to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, for filing a frivolous petition and wasting the precious time of this Court.”
The Court also ordered that pending applications in the matter stand disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel; Deekhsa L Kakar, Advocate; Bir Inder Singh, Advocate; Rashneet Singh, Advocate; Kamleshwari Pandi, Naib Tehsildar (DDA).
Case Title: Sacchi Shuruaat Sewa Samiti (NGO) v. Delhi Development Authority.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1707
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 7542/2017 & CM APPL. 2063/2020, CM. APPL 8897/2022.
Bench: Justice Dharmesh Sharma.
[Read/Download order]
