SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 872

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Jai Singh – Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector – Respondent
W.P.(C) 221/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.P. Rana, Bhuvan Tomar
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Pathak, K. Kaomudi Kiran, Sunil Kumar Jha, M. S. Akhtar, Manika Tripathy, Gautam Yadav

The court requires state authorities to verify historical land acquisition status after a significant lapse of time to resolve disputes regarding non-acquired portions of land and entitlement to compensation.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking either the restoration of possession of a specific parcel of land or its acquisition under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, following an earlier land acquisition proceeding initiated in 1995 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court considered the delay of over 30 years since the initial acquisition award was passed. The main issue is whether the subject land was excluded from the initial acquisition proceedings and whether the state is liable to pay compensation or restore possession. The court observed that given the significant lapse of time since the award, the petitioner's claim regarding the non-acquisition of land requires thorough verification by the concerned authorities. The court directed the Land Acquisition Collector and the development authority to file counter-affidavits clarifying whether the land in question was part of the original acquisition or the subsequent infrastructure project, scheduling the matter for further consideration.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition and historical background of the land acquisition dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. court's directive for state verification of land status due to inordinate delay. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

O R D E R

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:

“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondents/respondent No.2 to hand over physical possession of 1 Bigha land out of Khasra No. 11/12 at Village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi after separating the same from rest of the area with proper demarcation to the petitioner/bhumidars;

(b) Or in the alternative, direct the respondents to acquire the said 1 Bigha land out of Khasra No. 11/12 at Village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and/or

c) pass such other or further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.”

3. A brief background of the present case is that, Petitioner and his co-owners claim to be bhumidars in possession of area measuring 43 bigha 1 biswa of land in Khasra No. 11//1/1(3-12), 11//2/1-3(3-9), 11/9(4-9), 11/10(4-11), 11/11(4-16), 11/12(4-9), 11/20(4-16), 11/21(4-16), 11/22 (4- 9), 11/26(0-5), 11/19 (4-9) at Village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi.

4. Notification No. 11(36)/94/L&B/LA/5722 under Section 4 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) was issued on 5th April, 1995 in respect of a larger chunk of land in Village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi and also included the land of the Petitioner and its co-owners. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued and the physical possession of the notified land was also taken over.

5. Pursuant thereto, an award dated 19th December, 1997 was passed by the Respondent No.1 - Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter, ‘LAC’) under Section 11 of the Act (hereinafter, ‘the award’). Vide the award, an area measuring 712 bighas and 13 biswas, at Village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquired.

6. The purpose for acquiring the land was for development of the freight complex in Narela Projects under the Plan Development of Delhi.

7. The Petitioner’s case is that the Petitioner and some of the co-sharers were paid compensation for the acquired land measuring 43 bigha and 1 biswas. However, insofar as the 1 bigha out of Khasra no. 11/12 at Village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘1 bigha land’) is concerned, the case of the Petitioner is that the same has not been acquired and in fact no compensation has been paid.

8. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that he only received compensation qua 3 bighas and 9 biswas land and for the remaining 1 bigha land, no compensation was given and the said land has not been acquired, as per the award.

9. Heard. The acquisition of land in this case is dated way back in 1995 and more than 30 years have passed. Today, the Petitioner cannot be seen to raise a plea that the land itself has not been acquired, especially, when he was all along aware that there is an award which has been passed and some compensation has already been received.

10. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that 1 bigha land was not acquired at all in terms of the award. However, the ld. Counsel for LAC is also unable to confirm if this 1 bigha land was in fact included in the acquisition or not. Let the LAC take a stand as to whether the 1 bigha land was acquired or not. On the said basis, the matter would proceed further.

11. Issue notice to Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’). Ms. Manika Tripathy, ld. Standing Counsel accepts notice for the DDA.

12. Let the DDA also clarify in respect of whether 1 bigha land is part of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top