Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Brij Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6167/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anuj Kumar Garg
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M. S. Akhtar, Kushagra Dixit, Pushkar Sood, Samarth Sood, Vishwa Pal Singh, Anurag Pandey, Srajan S Kulshrestha, Abhijit Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh, Laqshyaa Saluja

Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under the newer legislation where an award was passed under the previous law prior to the commencement of the new act. Additionally, successive petitions challenging the same finalized acquisition awards constitute an abuse of process and are not maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - Acquisition proceedings - Lapse of - Right to Fair Compensation - Once an award has been passed under the previous legislative framework, proceedings do not lapse under the provisions of the current law regarding pending acquisitions - Compensation must be determined under the law prevailing at the time of the award. (Paras 29, 31, 32)

(B) Res Judicata - Abuse of process - Successive writ petitions challenging the same acquisition award repeatedly - Parties cannot seek to re-agitate issues that have attained finality through multiple judicial pronouncements - Such conduct constitutes an abuse of the court's process and is impermissible. (Paras 22, 41)

(C) Disposal of Land - Statutory right of first refusal for original owners - Where the land has been developed and utilized for public purpose, the provision regarding the offer of return of land to original owners does not apply. (Paras 34, 36)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the acquisition of property initiated decades prior, which had been the subject of multiple rounds of litigation. The petitioners sought to quash the award passed, contending that the acquisition had lapsed under the provisions of the new legislation governing land acquisition and rehabilitation and that they were entitled to compensation under that new law.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the petitioners were repeatedly re-agitating issues that had already been settled by various benches and sustained up to the highest judicial forum. It was determined that the original acquisition proceedings did not lapse because the award had been passed before the commencement of the new legislation. The land had been integrated into a larger public development project, removing it from the scope of provisions regarding potential return of land to original owners.

Issues: Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under the newer legislative enactment; whether the petitioners were entitled to seek compensation under the new law; and whether the successive filing of multiple writ petitions to re-litigate settled issues constituted an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 24(1)(a) of the legislation is inapplicable where an award has been rendered prior to the act's commencement. Furthermore, once an acquisition and associated compensation claims have been adjudicated to finality, subsequent attempts to challenge the same award on grounds already rejected by courts constitute an abuse of legal process.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. historical timeline of land acquisition proceedings and previous litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
2. petitioner's claims regarding section 24 of the act 2013 and section 21(a) of the delhi development act. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 27)
3. applicability of section 24 and the commencement date of the 2013 act. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 40)
4. inapplicability of section 21(2) of the delhi development act 1957 where land development is occurring. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. dismissal of petition due to repetitive litigation (abuse of process) and imposition of costs. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by Mr. Brij Lal and Mrs. Sumitra Devi through the legal heirs i.e., Mr. Rajindra Prashad and Mr. Pawan Kumar, inter alia, assailing the acquisition of property being 10 biswa comprised in Khasra No. 15/1/2/1, Village Aali, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘subject land’).

3. The case of the Petitioners is that the subject land was acquired in 1986, vide Award no. 206/86-87 dated 22nd September, 1986.

4. According to the Petitioners, the possession of the subject land was not taken for a considerable period of time, and the physical possession was still with the Petitioners.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioners had approached various authorities for measurement and demarcation of the land.

6. A second notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, ‘Act, 1894’) dated 25th November, 2009 was issued that the subject land is likely to be acquired for the construction of the Central Secretariat, Badarpur Corridor of DMRTS project.

7. In respect of the said notification dated 25th November, 2009, the Petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 863/2010 titled ‘Sumitra Devi v. Union of India’ challenging the said notification. The said petition was disposed of on 2nd May, 2011, permitting the Petitioner to file objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. This is the first round of litigation. The operative portion of the order dated 2nd May, 2011 is set out below:

“It has also been decided that there is no urgency in the acquisition proceedings and thus the notification to the extent It Invokes Section 17(1) and (4) of the LA Act to be recalled and petitioners should be granted hearing of their objections under Section 5A of the LA Act in accordance with Law. The natural consequence is that the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act would also go qua the land of the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid consent recorded, the impugned notification dated 25.11.2009 to the extent it Invokes Section 17 (1) and (4) of the LA Act and the subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act dated 12.3.2010 are quashed and the petitioners may file objections under Section 5A of the LA Act within thirty (30) days from today which objections will be decided In accordance with law.”

8. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an SLP before the Supreme Court against the order dated 2nd May, 2011, being SLP(C)No. 15692/2011.The said SLP was withdrawn on 6th June, 2011. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that special leave petition be dismissed as withdrawn.

Ordered accordingly.

Liberty is granted, as prayed, to raise all relevant issues before the concerned authorities.”

9. Pursuant thereto, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 16th February, 2012.

10. The said declaration was challenged by the Petitioners in the second writ petition being W.P.(C) 3095/2012 titled ‘Brij Lal & Ors. v. Union of India’.

11. In W.P.(C) 3095/2012, an order dated 22nd May, 2012 was passed, granting status quo in the following terms:

“1. Learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.4 are not at variance that subject land ad-measuring 10 biswa comprised i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPrathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJBrij Lal – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentW.P.(C) 6167/2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Brij Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6167/2026