$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12950/2019, CM APPL. 52788/2019 JEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kanwar Udai Bhan Singh Sehrawat, Advocate.

versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Sweety Singh, Advocate for R-2.

Mr. Rishi Kapoor and Mr. Azad Bansala, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. R.K. Dhawan, SC with Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. Pawan Karan Das, Mr.

V.K. Teng and Mr. K.R. Madhar, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 28^th September, 2016 passed by the Nodal Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate, whereby the request of the Petitioners for allotment of separate individual rehabilitation plots under the scheme framed for the displaced residents of Village Nangal Dewat was rejected. The controversy arises out of the acquisition of abadi land for the development of Palam Airport and concerns the entitlement of the Petitioners to individual alternative plots on the basis of their alleged independent holdings and inherited shares.

2. The present Petitioners are the legal representatives of late Jeet Singh, who was one of the sons of Surta S/o Siria. Surta was the recorded owner in the acquisition record. The claim to an individual alternative plot is traced through Jeet Singh, and not through Surta. References to “predecessor”

hereafter are to Jeet Singh unless the context indicates otherwise.

3. The Petitioners trace their claim to holdings and structures in Khasra Nos. 1243 (old abadi) and 1259/1 (extended abadi). It is asserted that late Surta @ Surat Singh, S/o Siria, was the recorded owner in possession of land measuring 1015.17 sq. yds. The Petitioners further rely upon entries reflecting that Jeet Singh (also described in certain structure entries as Jeet Ram S/o Surta) had an independent 1/6^th share of 75.5 sq. yds in Khasra No. 1243, and that his name figured separately in the Survey Report and Naksha Muntazamin. As regards another family member, it is asserted that he was in occupation of a dwelling unit admeasuring 66 sq. yds in the same khasra and held an independent electricity connection. On this basis, the Petitioners contend that each claimant ought to be assessed separately, by adding (i) the claimant’s independent holding and (ii) the claimant’s proportionate share in the father’s holding, and thereafter allotting separate alternative plots to each eligible claimant.

Prior proceedings and the remit to the Nodal Officer

4. The Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by W.P.(C) 303/2007, assailing the order dated 10^th November, 2006 by which the Nodal Officer had rejected the request for allotment of separate alternative plots in individual names. By the order passed in the said writ petition, this Court partly accepted the challenge, holding that where the name of a claimant figured in the Survey Report and the claimant was shown to have an independent holding, the claimant’s share in the father’s holding had to be added to such independent holding in terms of the guidelines approved by this Court on 18^th May, 2005. In the earlier proceedings, the claim advanced on behalf of Satbir Singh (another son of Surta) was rejected, and no relief was granted in his favour. The Nodal Officer was directed to undertake the computation exercise and proceed accordingly.

5. The present petition is directed against the order dated 28^th September, 2016 passed thereafter. That order proceeds on the footing that, by reason of the later Division Bench decision in LPA No. 429/2007 titled Airport Authority of India v Nirmala Devi & Ors.,¹ the question of entitlement to an “individual” alternative plot cannot turn merely on the appearance of a name in the Survey Report or Naksha Muntazamin. The impugned order applies the requirement laid down by the Division Bench which, in substance, requires the claimant to establish a triad: (i) separate mention in the Survey Report, (ii) separate mention in