$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1275/2026 RENU RANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Senior Advocate with Ms. Zoya Mehta, Ms. Sonakshi Singh, Mr. Harshit Sharma, Mr. Naman Kumar and Mr. Kumar Bhaskar, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SPC with Ms.

Kanchan Semwal, G.P. with Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Shivam Goel, Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Ms. Ramya S. Goel and Ms.

Sanya Sharma, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advocates for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 CM APPL. 6288/2026 (seeking stay)

1. Mr. Uttam Datt, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is the lawful owner and in possession of agricultural land measuring 1 Bigha 11 Biswansi, falling in Khasra No. 95/1/1 and other adjoining holdings situated in Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. He submits that the Petitioner’s lands in the adjoining holdings were acquired by the Respondents for the construction of the Dwarka Expressway under the National Highways Act, 1956.

2. It is contended that subsequent to the acquisition, the Respondents erected barricades and construction obstructions along the frontage of the Petitioner’s remaining unacquired land, thereby blocking access and rendering the said land landlocked. According to the Petitioner, these actions were taken without providing, proposing, or earmarking any alternative route, service lane, rasta, or access passage, leaving the Petitioner without any lawful means of ingress or egress.

3. In support of his submissions, reference is made to a layout plan, an extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow.

4. Mr. Datt submits that the Petitioner claims ownership over the unacquired portion marked in orange colour therein and he is not asking for access to the expressway. He is only seeking a passage to the road described as the “bund road”, shown in the said plan, which, according to the Petitioner, is the only lawful access to the surrounding areas. In this context, reliance is placed on an order passed by this Court in Sajjan Kaur v. Union of India and Anr., in W.P.(C) 5108/2025, decided on 22^nd April, 2025, wherein the Court observed as follows:

“4. A similar case with regard to the land of another petitioner, abutting the same National Highway, is pending consideration [W.P.(C) 304/2024]. In that case, the Court, inter alia, directed the NHAI, and the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, GNCTD, to look into the petitioner’s grievances and find a resolution. In the present case also, a resolution will have to be found, which permits the petitioner to access her land without interference from the other neighbours or any impediment from the Highway under construction.

5. At Ms. Maan’s request, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [“GNCTD”], through the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, is impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. Amended memo of parties be filed within three days. Ms. Avni Singh, learned counsel for GNCTD, who appears in W.P.(C) 304/2024, is requested to take instructions in the present case also.”

5. The Court has heard Mr. Datt as well as counsel for Respondents. The Respondents contend that material facts have been concealed. It is pointed out that the portion shown in white colour and marked as 6/2 in the cited plan belongs to the Petitioner and her husband and, therefore, the Petitioner is not without an alternate access to the bund road. It is further contended that the Petitioner’s unacquired land lies in close proximity to the toll plaza and that no access can be permitted in that area. Accordingly, the land alleged to have been barricaded is acquired land and there is no encroachment upon the Petitioner’s private property.

6. In any event, it is argued the statute itself provides a mechanism in cases where land becomes landlocked, and that the affected party may seek compensation under Section 3G(7) of t