Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Renu Bhatnagar, J
Ashok Kumar Rana – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
LA.APP. 206/2017|LA.APP. 207/2017|LA.APP. 208/2017|LA.APP. 209/2017|LA.APP. 210/2017|LA.APP. 247/2017|LA.APP. 248/2017|LA.APP. 292/2017|LA.APP. 295/2017|LA.APP. 317/2017|LA.APP. 318/2017|LA.APP. 366/2017|LA.APP. 14/2018|LA.APP. 28/2018|LA.APP. 29/2018|LA.APP. 30/2018|LA.APP. 48/2018|LA.APP. 60/2018|LA.APP. 62/2018|LA.APP. 63/2018|LA.APP. 66/2018|LA.APP. 74/2018|LA.APP. 109/2018|LA.APP. 111/2018|LA.APP. 137/2018|LA.APP. 154/2018|LA.APP. 224/2018|LA.APP. 75/2019|LA.APP. 125/2019|LA.APP. 25/2021|LA.APP. 116/2021|LA.APP. 2/2022|LA.APP. 38/2022|LA.APP. 48/2022|LA.APP. 55/2022|LA.APP. 60/2022|LA.APP. 61/2022|LA.APP. 62/2022|LA.APP. 73/2022|LA.APP. 74/2022|LA.APP. 75/2022|LA.APP. 86/2022|LA.APP. 146/2022|LA.APP. 162/2022|LA.APP. 166/2022|LA.APP. 169/2022|LA.APP. 171/2022|LA.APP. 191/2022|LA.APP. 299/2022|LA.APP. 320/2022|LA.APP. 321/2022|LA.APP. 335/2022|LA.APP. 301/2022|LA.APP. 302/2022|LA.APP. 303/2022|LA.APP. 304/2022|LA.APP. 305/2022|LA.APP. 309/2022|LA.APP. 311/2022|LA.APP. 313/2022|LA.APP. 314/2022|LA.APP. 316/2022|LA.APP. 318/2022|LA.APP. 323/2022|LA.APP. 324/2022|LA.APP. 328/2022|LA.APP. 331/2022|LA.APP. 332/2022|LA.APP. 333/2022|LA.APP. 334/2022|LA.APP. 336/2022|LA.APP. 339/2022|LA.APP. 340/2022|LA.APP. 341/2022|LA.APP. 342/2022|LA.APP. 346/2022|LA.APP. 347/2022|LA.APP. 5/2023|LA.APP. 349/2022|LA.APP. 360/2022|LA.APP. 362/2022|LA.APP. 363/2022|LA.APP. 374/2022|LA.APP. 375/2022|LA.APP. 14/2023|LA.APP. 18/2023|LA.APP. 19/2023|LA.APP. 20/2023|LA.APP. 31/2023|LA.APP. 599/2023|LA.APP. 260/2024|LA.APP. 261/2024|LA.APP. 262/2024|LA.APP. 263/2024|LA.APP. 274/2024|LA.APP. 8/2025|LA.APP. 9/2025|LA.APP. 58/2025|LA.APP. 59/2025|LA.APP. 65/2025|LA.APP. 67/2025|LA.APP. 75/2025|LA.APP. 76/2025|LA.APP. 77/2025|LA.APP. 78/2025|LA.APP. 79/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Sukhda Dhamija, Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Ms. Alka Singh, Ms. Parmita Nath, Mr. R.K. Sharma, Mr. Arjun
For the Respondents: Mr. Kamlesh Kamal, Ms. Arunima Dwivedii, Ms. Himanshi Singh, Ms. Monalisa Pradhan, Ms. Priya Khurana, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Rithank Kumar, Mr. Anil Pandey, Mr. Sumit Mehta, Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Mr. Piyush Wadhwa, Mr. Kunal Dixit
The court directed consolidation and standardization of procedures for multiple land acquisition appeals, focusing on record inspection, filing concise written submissions, and managing party representation requests to streamline the adjudication process.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - Multiple appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings involving multiple parties, including landowners and government authorities - Procedural directions issued for inspection of trial court records and filing of written submissions to streamline adjudication. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4)
(B) Legal Representation - Discharge of counsel - Permission granted for the discharge of a legal representative upon the engagement of new counsel by the party, with no objection raised by the party concerned. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The matter involves numerous connected appeals concerning land acquisition compensation, involving landowners, the central government, and a municipal corporation. The parties sought directions for records inspection and procedural timelines for submissions.
Findings of Court:
The court granted parties the right to inspect Trial Court records, requested consolidated written submissions within eight weeks, allowed the discharge of a specific legal counsel, and set procedural deadlines for applications regarding compensation release and the impleadment of an additional respondent authority.
Issues: The main issues are the determination of lead matters for fragmented sets of appeals and the procedural compliance required to expedite the adjudication of compensation claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural fairness and orderly case management are essential in complex multi-party litigation; hence, parties are directed to organize record inspection and submit concise, indexed arguments to facilitate systematic judicial review.
Result: Procedural directions issued; re-notified for future hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural coordination and standardization in massive multi-party litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedure for discharge of counsel and party representation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. management of interim applications for compensation and impleadment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
O R D E R
1. It is stated by learned counsels appearing for both the sides that there are three set of appeals, one filed by the Land Owners, the other filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the third one by Union of India.
2. Learned counsels appearing for the Land Owners submits that after inspecting the records they will apprise the court as to which matter shall be considered as lead matter in their set of appeals.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India also wants to inspect the Trial Court Record. Both the sides are allowed to inspect the Trial Court Record.
4. Both the parties may file their written submissions not exceeding five pages, referring to the e-pagination of this Court along with compilation of judgments, if any, with a proper index giving the relevant paragraph numbers and the case laws within a period of eight weeks.
5. Re-notify on 18th March, 2026.
LA.APP. 335/2022
LA.APP. 260/2024
6. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and 2 in LA.APP. 335/2022 and LA.APP. 260/2024 that she wants to withdraw her Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 as they have engaged another counsel.
7. Respondent no. 2, who is present in the Court today submits that he and his brother (respondent no.1 Braham Prakash Rana) have already engaged another counsel and they have no objection to the request of the counsel seeking discharge in this matter.
8. Ms. Sukhda Dhamija is discharged on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 in LA.APP. 335/2022 and LA.APP. 260/2024.
CM APPL. 59546/2025 in LA.APP. 59/2025
9. This application is filed by the respondents/Land Owners seeking directions to the executing court for release of the enhanced compensation.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks more time to file reply. Let reply of the application be filed within four weeks with advance copy to the other side. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
11. Re-notify on 18th March, 2026.
CM APPL. 19108/2025 in LA.APP. 59/2025
12. This is an application moved by appellant seeking impleadment of PWD as a respondent.
13. Issue notice to this application to the non-applicants as well as newly impleaded respondent on taking appropriate steps, returnable on 18th March, 2026.
