$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8021/2023 AMIT MALIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv. (thru VC)

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. K. Chandel, Adv. for R-1/ UOI.

Ms. Ruchika Rathi, Adv. for L&B Deptt.

Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate for DDA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025

1. Prayer of petitioner is in relation to the declaration of acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Act of 1894”) as ultra vires Articles 300 and 14 A of Constitution of India,1950.

2. It is the case of petitioner that he is in physical possession of property admeasuring 253.73sq. metres, comprising of two built-up plots measuring 130 sq. metres. bearing No. 78/A-4 and 123.73 sq. metres. bearing No. 78/A- 5 in Khasra no. 30/11, Village of Revenue Estate Pansali, Deep Vihar Colony, Pansali, Delhi.

3. It is his case that he has acquired this land by virtue of various sale deeds, Power of Attorneys etc. and pleadings, in relation to which, read thus:

“19. That as a matter of fact, petitioner is the owner and in possession of built up property bearing No. 78/A-5 total admeasuring 129.59 square meters, which was purchased by him from its erstwhile owner, namely Smt. Charu Chugh, Smt. Madhu Bala and Smt. Veena Malik vide chain of sale documents dated 31.10.2014 comprising of Agreement of Sale & Purchase, General Power of Attorney, Payment Receipt, Deed of WIIL, Letter of Possession and Affidavit dated 31.10.2014. Petitioner purchased property bearing No. 78/A-4 admeasuring 123.73 sq. mtrs. in Khasra no. 30/11, Village of Revenue Estate Pansali, Deep Vihar Colony, Pansali, Delhi from its erstwhile owner Smt. Kamlesh vide chain of sale documents dated 12.5.2017.”

4. Based on above, it is his contention that Section 4 notification dated 27^th October 1999, Section 6 notification dated 20^th March 2013, as well as Award No.4/2011-12/DC (NW), are illegal and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. As far as land in Khasra no. 30/11, Village Pansali is concerned, petitioner claims to have acquired the right, title and interest in the said land post the date of Award as referred above, much less post Section 4 and Section 6 notifications. It is case of the petitioner that he himself has acquired tittle to the land in 2017 under various sale documents. The respondents have disputed the title of the petitioner to the land in question based on the pleadings as none of the title deeds are produced on record justifying the said claim.

6. If we see notification under Section 4, we are unable to convince ourselves as regards the acquisition of land Khasra no. 30/11, Village Pansali as we see no such khasra number in Section 4 notification relied upon by the petitioner.

7. A perusal of affidavit placed on record by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) narrates altogether different set of dates of acquisition. Also affidavit of respondent no.6, specifically states that the land in question was acquired under the Act of 1894 by issuing notification under Section 4 on 27^th October 1999, Section 6 notification dated 03^rd April 2000 and 20^th March 2013 and Award No.4/2011-12.

8. The said affidavit is part of record and proceedings of this Court to which no rejoinder is placed by the petitioner disputing the pleadings of the respondent.

9. Apart from above, the land to the extent of Khasra no. 30/11, Village Pansali is concerned, possession receipt of same is already produced on record by the respondents which is claimed to have been acquired under the Award No.4/2011-12.

10. In the aforesaid background of factual matrix, having appreciated the very conduct of the petitioner of allegedly acquiring the title and interest post Section 4 notification dated 27^th October 1999 in backdrop of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Shiv Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 10