$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19068/2025 & CM APPL. 79374/2025 SMT KRISHNA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Mr. Satvik Rai, Mr.

Kartik Rai, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Ayush Pandita, Mr. Vineesh Tyagi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA with Mr. Aakash and Mr. Gautam Yadav, Advs. for R-2/DDA.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC for R-1 along with Mrs. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S.

Akhtar, Advs.

CORAM:

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

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. It is the case of the petitioner that after the award was passed in 1986, he preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894), which was rejected vide order dated 07^th January 2013 on technical grounds viz. the absence of diary number on the reference.

2. As such, according to him, the Section 18 reference has never travelled to the Civil Court for adjudication and therefore, no element of the claim, regarding grant of enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, was adjudicated on merits.

3. The learned counsel would claim that the petitioner came across a judgment in a reference petition under Section 18 of Act of 1894, dated 17^th October 2014, delivered in case of similarly placed land-owners whose land were acquired under the very same notification under Section 4 of the Act of

1894.

4. The same prompted him to prefer a reference under Section 28A of the Act of 1894, on 02^nd December 2014.

5. The said proceedings were rejected vide impugned order dated 14^th August 2024, stating that the Section 18 reference preferred by the petitioner already stood rejected and in such an eventuality, the remedy under Section 28A of the Act of 1894 for grant of enhanced compensation is not available or maintainable.

6. Drawing support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Hansoli Devi & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 273, particularly paragraph 4, it is urged that in case if adjudication of the reference preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was on its merits, it would have been justified for the respondent to reject the claim under Section 28A of the Act of 1894. However, in the case at hand, there was no adjudication on merits and the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected by the administrative authority at its own level on technical grounds, without the reference being travelled to the Civil Court.

7. As such, it is claimed that there is no exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and in such an eventuality, the remedy provided under Section 28A of the Act of 1894 is very much available. The counsel would draw support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Hansoli Devi (Supra).

8. Issue notice to the respondents.

9. Learned counsels appearing for respondents no.1 & 2 respectively, waives the notice.

10. List on 19^th March 2026.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J ANISH DAYAL, J DECEMBER 16, 2025/sky/ss