The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner's representation under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 was rejected by the Respondents and was not maintainable. The Petitioner's claim of possession was rejected, and they were found to be encroachers and illegal occupants on public land.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the demolition action proposed by Respondent No.1, Delhi Development Authority (`DDA'), in Khasra Number 804/24-26 (5-14) of Village Sadhora Kalan, near Mahavir Modern Senior Secondary School, opposite Nanak Piau Gurudwara, New Delhi. The petition more specifically impugns the communication dated 12.12.2022 issued by Respondent no.1 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, District North West, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, requesting for sufficient police force during the demolition program.

2. The Petitioners in this petition further seek a restraint against the Respondent No.1 from carrying out any demolition of the structure existing in both Khasra Nos. 804/24-26, admeasuring 5 Bigha 14 Biswa (`the subject land') and 940/23 (3-9).

3. The Petitioners state that the land forming part of Khasra No. 940/23 is unacquired by the Respondents and though, the impugned communication dated 12.12.2022, does not contain any reference to a planned demolition in the said Khasra, the present petition has been filed as there is an apprehension that Respondent No.1 may undertake demolition of the existing structure in Khasra No. 940/23 in addition.

4. The Petitioners admit that with respect to the subject land a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`the Act of 1894') was issued on 24.10.1961. On 23.12.1968 a notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued. Thereafter, on 19.09.1986, an Award No. 107/1986-87 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the subject land.

5. The Petitioner contends that however, no possession of the land was taken by Respondents after the passing of the award. In contrast, the Respondents have consistently contended that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 23.09.1986 after following the due procedure including drawing of a panchnama and the title of the land vests in the Government.

6. The Petitioners filed an application on 21.10.2011 under Section 48 of the Act of 1984 (`application/representation'), before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Respondent No. 2, for release of the subject land in favour of the Petitioners herein. The Petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 7714/2011, wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2011 directed the Respondents not to take any coercive action with respect to the subject land, before deciding the application under Section 48 of the Act of 1894. The Court further directed the Respondent authority to keep in abeyance adverse orders, if any, till 15 days after the communication of the said order.

7. The Petitioners have disclosed in the present petition that though the Petitioners' said representation remained undecided, however, with the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (`the Act of 2013'), the Petitioners preferred another writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 1034/2015, against the Respondents i.e. Government of NCT of Delhi (`GNCTD'), DDA and Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, praying for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings qua the subject land in dispute have lapsed. It is stated that this Court allowed the said writ petition vide its order dated 30.08.2016 and held that the acquisition proceedings qua the subject land have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.

8. Respondent No.1, DDA and Respondent No. 3, GNCTD both impugned this Court's order dated 30.08.2016 before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1927-1928 of 2022 on two primary assertions that the possession of the subject land was with the Respondent No. 1 and even the compensation amount stood deposited. The Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 29.03.2022, allowed the said appeals filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and set aside this Court's order dated 30.08.2016. The Supreme Court held that the land acqu