Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.08.2025
HANSRAJ GOSWAMI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Shukla, Mr. Vivek Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Sunil Prajapati, Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocates (M:
9958429420)
Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Ms. Pragti Bhatia, Ms. Vasudha Priyansha, Advocates for MCD (M:8288898395)
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the notice/letter dated 08th January, 2025, issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) for property bearing Khasra No. 1092, Khatauni No. 369, Khevat No. 199, area measuring 10 Bighas, 04 Bishwas, situated at Mauja Patti Bans, Koli Mauja, Aram Bagh, Rani Jhansi Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110055.
2. There is further prayer in the petition for directing the respondent- MCD to reassess the property tax due on the said property and thereafter, to mutate the property in the name of the petitioner, i.e., Hansraj Goswami.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was bequeathed the aforesaid property through a registered Will dated 03rd September, 2019, executed by the lawful owner, i.e., late Smt. Amrita Devi. It is the petitioner‟s case that owner of the property in question, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, passed away on 04th September, 2023, after which the petitioner has become the absolute owner. The petitioner had applied for mutation of the subject property before the MCD on 14th October, 2024. However, no action was taken by the MCD with regard thereto.
4. Subsequently, MCD issued a notice dated 08th January, 2025, making mutation conditional upon payment of property tax. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed, challenging the said letter dated 08th January, 2025.
5. This Court notes that in the order dated 03rd July, 2025, statement on behalf of the respondent-MCD had been recorded that as per the information received by the MCD, the original owner of the property in question, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, is still alive. The relevant portion of the order dated 03rd July, 2025, reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD, who submits that the original owner of the property in question, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi is still alive, as per the information received by the MCD. She further submits that the MCD is, thus, investigating the matter with regard thereto. xxx xxx xxx”
6. Today, learned counsel for the respondent-MCD submits that a reply on their behalf has been filed on 12th August, 2025, however, the same is not on record. Learned counsel has handed over a physical copy of the said reply, which is taken on record.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-MCD, relying upon the said reply dated 12th August, 2025, submits that the MCD received a letter from the purported original owner, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, that she is still alive and that she had executed some other certain documents in favour of one Mr. Murari Lal Gupta, at Bhiwani, Haryana.
8. She further submits that the MCD had inspected the property in question and had duly informed the petitioner herein, as well as the purported original owner of the property, i.e., Smt. Amrita Devi, including, the persons who are in possession of the property in question, about the said inspection.
9. She submits that the inspection of the land in question was duly carried out by the MCD on 11th July, 2025. She further submits that despite notice, neither the petitioner, nor the aforesaid Smt. Amrita Devi, were present at the time of inspection.
10. Learned counsel for MCD submits that at the time of inspection, it was found that the occupier of the property in question is „Bal Bharamchari Shree Guru Munni Vyayamshala (Aakhada) Shree Guru Prabhu Dayal Sharma Dalpati Ganesh Dal’. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the documents in this regard.
11. Thus, it is submitted that there is dispute as regards the ownership of the property in question and therefore, it is not possible for the MCD to carry out any mutation in favour of the petitioner.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MCD has not filed on record any document to show that the purported letter submitted by Smt. Amrita Devi, was indeed filed by Smt. Amrita Devi. He further submits that there is no document on record to establish the identity of Smt. Amrita Devi. He, thus, submits that there are no disputed questions of facts in the present case. Rather, the respondent-MCD has stated wrong facts before this Court on the basis of certain documents, which are not material to the present case.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further handed over to this Court copy of the documents which, according to the petitioner, are the Election Commission Identity Card, Pan Card and Passport of Smt. Amrita Devi. The said documents, as handed over by the petitioner, are also taken on record.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a valid registered Will dated 03rd September, 2019, in his favour. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the property tax, under the Amnesty Scheme of the MCD, which is applicable till 30th September, 2025.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, (2020) 19 SCC 241, and in particular, paragraph 11 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as under:
11. It could thus be seen, that even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such a plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The High Court would be justified in exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, in the present case, we find that there are hardly any disputed questions of facts.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Versus Tahsildar and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447, and in particular, relies upon paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of the said judgment, which are reproduced as under:
47. One stock argument available with the State in this type of cases is that the question whether the actual physical possession of the disputed land had been taken over or not is a seriously disputed question of fact, which the High Court should not adjudicate or determine in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. As a principle of law, there need not be any debate on such a proposition, but by merely submitting that it is a seriously disputed question of fact, the same, by itself, will not become a question of fact. To put it in other words, having regard to the materials on record, which falsifies the case of the State Government, then such materials should not be overlooked or ignored by the Court on the principle that the issue with regard to taking over of the actual physical possession would be a disputed question of fact.
48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.
49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences.
17. By relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if there are disputed question of facts, in cases where the facts which do not require any elaborate evidence to be adduced, a High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can still decide the case accordingly.
18. He further submits that in terms of the aforesaid judgments, mere existence of disputed questions of fact by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of the writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner.
19. He, thus, submits that on the basis of the documents on record, the petitioner ought to be granted relief and mutation of the land in question ought to be done in favour of the petitioner.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to the copy of the Jamabandi which is annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present writ petition, to submit that the land in question is owned by late Smt. Amrita Devi. He also relies upon the registered Will and death certificate of Smt. Amrita Devi to submit that the said Smt. Amrita Devi has already expired. Thus, he submits that the letter relied upon by the respondent-MCD is of no consequence.
21. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court, at the outset, notes the reply dated 12th August, 2025, filed on behalf of the MCD, wherein, certain facts have emerged in the following manner:
22. Perusal of the aforesaid reply of the MCD clearly shows that during the pendency of the present petition, the MCD received a letter from a person claiming to be Smt. Amrita Devi, i.e., the original owner of the property in question.
23. Subsequently, in order to assess the position, the MCD had duly notified the petitioner, as well as the person who claimed to be Smt. Amrita Devi, and fixed an inspection for 11th July, 2025. For this purpose, the MCD had issued a letter dated 07th July, 2025, to seek their presence during the scheduled inspection.
24. This Court notes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had duly replied to the said notice vide its letter dated 10th July, 2025, which is taken on record.
25. Further, this Court notes the Survey/Inspection Report of the MCD dated 11th July, 2025, which reads as under:
26. Thus, it transpires that only after due notice to the petitioner, as well as to the person who purportedly claims to be Smt. Amrita Devi, the MCD had proceeded to inspect the land in question. During the course of inspection, neither the petitioner, nor the said woman, who claimed to be Smt. Amrita Devi, or anyone on her behalf, were present.
27. During the course of inspection, the MCD found that the land in question was being occupied by a person running an Akhada in the name of „Bal Bharamchari Shree Guru Munni Vyayamshala (Aakhada) Shree Guru Prabhu Dayal Sharma Dalpati Ganesh Dal’.
28. Further, the photographs thereto, as attached by the MCD with their reply, are reproduced as under:
29. During the course of hearing, this Court pointedly asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is in occupation of the land in question or not.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from the petitioner, who is present in person, fairly submits that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question.
31. On further query by this Court, it has come to the fore that the petitioner has not filed any suit for possession, despite admitting the fact that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question.
32. Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is the undisputed statement of the petitioner that the actual owner of the land in question is one Smt. Amrita Devi.
33. On the one hand, the petitioner seeks ownership of the land in question on the basis of the Will of Smt. Amrita Devi, and the prayer for mutation has been made by the petitioner by relying upon the said Will.
34. On the other hand, upon perusal of MCD‟s reply dated 12th August, 2025, it has come to the fore that there is another person claiming herself to be Smt. Amrita Devi.
35. Therefore, this Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner is neither in possession of the property in question, nor has he taken any steps to file any suit for possession, despite the claim of the petitioner that the said Smt. Amrita Devi, the original owner of the property in question, has expired on 04th September, 2023.
36. Clearly, the title of the petitioner herein, is under cloud. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the purposes of any direction to the MCD to mutate the property in favour of the petitioner or to direct the MCD to reassess the property tax on the basis of any prayer made by the petitioner.
37. Needless to state that mutation of the property is done by the MCD only on the basis of established ownership documents.
38. Since, in the present case, the very ownership of the petitioner is under cloud, this Court certainly cannot direct the MCD to mutate the property in the petitioner‟s name.
39. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid detailed discussion, the present writ petition, along with pending applications, is accordingly dismissed.
40. The next date of hearing of 08th September, 2025, stands cancelled. MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 20, 2025