Shanti Devi vs the State Govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr

Shanti Devi vs The State Govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided Jun 08, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1266233

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1266233
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decided On: Jun 08, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(CRL)/1777/2026
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shanti Devi

Advocate Mr. U. S. Gautam, Mr. Shubham Shukla, Ms. Anu Mandhan, Mr. Ishu Sharma, Mr. Pranbhanshu

Respondent

The State Govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr

Advocate Mr. Anand V. Khatri, Mr. Hirein Sharma, Mr. Vimal Tyagi

Excerpt

.....no.b-218, gali no.11, b-block, bhajanpura, delhi(admeasuring 150 sq. yards). initially, there were two plots of 50 sq. yards and 100 sq. yards, which have now been merged and made into one suit property, after the demise of sh. chander bhan.6. late sh. chander bhan (petitioner’s husband) had initially executed awill in favour of sh. hotilal and sh. sohanlal @ sompal in respect of the suit property. however, it was subsequently cancelled and a fresh will was executed by him in favour of his wife smt. shanti devi (petitioner herein) and had debarred all other family members.7. petitioner, being harassed by respondent nos.4 to 7, had filed a complaint under section 12 of dv act and a civil suit for mandatory injunction against them.8. it is claimed that respondent nos.4 and 5 had committed theft of twogold chains and some of rs.10,000/- from the petitioner and are threatening her to transfer the suit property in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7. hence, petitioner has filed present petition seeking protection from them.9. learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 7 submits that civil suit filed by the petitioner, to declare her as owner of the suit property, has been dismissed. submissions heard and record perused.10. in the circumstances, as stated above, sho, police station: bhajanpura, is directed to share his mobile numbers of the beat constable as well as sho to ensure the safety and liberty of the petitioner.11. with the aforesaid directions, present petition along with pending applications is disposed of.neena bansal krishna, j.june 8, 2026/r

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1777/2026 SHANTI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. S. Gautam, Mr. Shubham Shukla, Ms. Anu Mandhan, Mr. Ishu Sharma and Mr. Pranbhanshu Advocates with Petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, SI Manish Lavanyia and HC Vipin Kumar, PS: Bhajanpura. Mr. Hirein Sharma and Mr. Vimal Tyagi, Advs. for R-4 to R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

ORDER

% 08.06.2026 CRL.M.A. 17919/2026

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 1777/2026

3. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking protection from Respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are her children.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents have appeared on advance Notice and accepted Notice.

5. It is submitted in the Petition that Petitioner’s Smt. Shanti Devi husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan, who expired on 06.01.2013, had purchased this Property bearing No.B-218, Gali No.11, B-block, Bhajanpura, Delhi

(admeasuring 150 sq. yards). Initially, there were two Plots of 50 sq. yards and 100 sq. yards, which have now been merged and made into one Suit Property, after the demise of Sh. Chander Bhan.

6. Late Sh. Chander Bhan (Petitioner’s husband) had initially executed a

Will in favour of Sh. Hotilal and Sh. Sohanlal @ Sompal in respect of the Suit Property. However, it was subsequently cancelled and a fresh Will was executed by him in favour of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi (Petitioner herein) and had debarred all other family members.

7. Petitioner, being harassed by Respondent Nos.4 to 7, had filed a Complaint under Section 12 of DV Act and a Civil Suit for Mandatory Injunction against them.

8. It is claimed that Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had committed theft of two

Gold Chains and some of Rs.10,000/- from the Petitioner and are threatening her to transfer the Suit Property in favour of Respondent Nos.4 to 7. Hence, Petitioner has filed present Petition seeking protection from them.

9. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 7 submits that Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner, to declare her as owner of the Suit Property, has been dismissed. Submissions heard and record perused.

10. In the circumstances, as stated above, SHO, Police Station: Bhajanpura, is directed to share his Mobile Numbers of the Beat Constable as well as SHO to ensure the safety and liberty of the Petitioner.

11. With the aforesaid directions, present Petition along with pending Applications is disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

JUNE 8, 2026/R

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Shanti Devi vs The State Govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna